1920-04-20

REPORT TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
First Annual Report of the Air Board-Hon. Air. Sifton.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. S. F. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture), it was ordered that the House do to-morrow go into committee te consider a resolution respecting an amend inent to the Oleomargarine Act, 1919.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), it was ordered that the House do to-morrow go into committee to consider a resolution respecting an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Rt. Hon. Sir George Foster, Acting Prime Minister, that the House do go into Committee of Supply:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I must thank my right hon. friend for his courtesy in moving the House into supply in order to give me an opportunity to make a statement which I have desired for some time past to make, but which, owing to the rules of the House, I have found it impossible to make at an earlier date. The subject I desire to discuss is one which I would have raised as a question of privilege had it not been that the rules of the House limit a speaker in such case to a simple denial of statements complained of, and the matters to which I wish to refer are of such a nature

that the House 1 think will permit from me something more than a formal denial.
I desire to bring to the attention of hon. members a report of a meeting which was held in the city of Montreal on the 5th day of this month, which appears in the Montreal Gazette of the day following. It is the account of a meeting of the regular weekly luncheon of the so-called "Progressive Club" in that city. The report contains addresses by Mr. John MacNaughton, an advocate of Montreal, and by a Dr. Gilday, a medical practitioner, also of that city. The report will be found on page 5 of the Montreal Gazette, under the following heading: " Scored Liberal Party on Policy." "Progressive Club speaker claims Opposition not in harmony on question." " Criticised Party Leader." "Said indications pointed to continuing relationship between Hon. Mackenzie King and Rockefeller." The particular statements to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, and which I regard as being defamatory, appear in the addresses of both Mr. MacNaughton and Dr. Gilday. First, under the sub-heading, " Menace to Canada " is the following as a part of the address delivered by Mr. MacNaughton. Referring to myself Mr. MacNaughton is thus reported:
So far as the returned man was concerned, he declared, how could he expect to receive any concessions from a Liberal leader who had deserted Canada in her hour of crisis in search of Standard Oil millions. Indications pointed to a still continuing relationship between Mr. King and the Rockefeller interests, which at no distant date might prove a menace to Canada.
Then appears the following reference to utterances by Dr. Gilday:
In moving a vote of thanks tc the speakers of the day. Dr. F. W. Gilday referred to the first Liberal leader as one whose connections with American capitalists might soon prove inimical to Canada's best interests.
He saw in Mr. King the representative of certain American commercial men charged with the mission of making Canada a free trade country, and commercially subservient to the United States. Mr. King had left Canada at the time of war crisis, although a bachelor and capable of bearing arms, and only a young man. He preferred, however, to work for Rockefeller, and indications pointed to the fact that he had returned to Canada not for the purpose of the country's best welfare and advancement, but still apparently entangled in the octopus of Standard Oil interests and Rockefeller millions. The future, he said, would bear out the truth of his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, it will be perfectly apparent to hon. members of this House that statements of this kind are intended to arouse prejudice not in one direction only, but in many directions, and prejudice of the most bitter and cruel kind-prejudice in the

minds of labour, prejudice in the minds of the returned soldiers, prejudice in the minds of the business community, prejudice in the minds of all patriotic citizens. The statements are absolutely false in fact and misleading in inference. They constitute as utter a slander, and as undoubted a criminal libel as any statement could possibly be. If I have not taken steps to proceed against the guilty parties, it is because I am willing to believe that they were made in complete ignorance of the facts, and that they would not have been uttered had the truth been known to those who made them, or to the journal which has given them publicity.
I do not at this moment rise to make any defence in regard to any statement which is contained in these utterances. My purpose is solely to place on record a few relevant facts, so that ignorance of the truth, or any pleading of current rumour, will not hereafter be any defence should I find it necessary and desirable to take criminal proceedings against individuals, or publications that persist in this kind of political warfare.
Were the gentlemen who have made these statements not members of learned and honourable professions, and were the paper that has given publicity to them not one which prides itself on its high place in journalism in this country, I could well afford to treat them with that contempt and indifference with which I have treated like slanderous statements in the past. I feel, however, that if I continue to allow statements of this kind to go unchallenged, in view of the publicity that has been given them, I shall be laying myself open to being misunderstood throughout the country in a manner which will not only prejudice me personally as a member of this House but also prejudice hon. gentlemen who have honoured me with the position I hold and those who accord to us political support. I have a. further reason for desiring to give to the House a few relevant facts, and that is my belief that there are many persons in this country who have no desire to further either a personal injury or a public wrong, but who, owing to the currency which has been given to certain false statements and rumours, find it difficult to understand how so much publicity could be given to anything that is so absolutely without foundation.
And I have yet another reason for desiring to make this statement at this time.
I see no other way in which many of my, fellow-countrymen who have served this

country overseas can find it possible to become acquainted with the truth, in view of statements that have been made to them concerning matters which were supposed to have taken place during the time they were absent from this country.
Sir, as I have said, these statements are utterly false and completely misleading.
First of all, there is the statement that J have resided in the United States. Permit me to say that I have lived for the last twenty years in this city of Ottawa, and have never during that time had my place of residence anywhere else. During the last ten years. I have resided in the Roxborough Apartments in this city, and any member of this House who inquires of the Imperial Realty Company, the proprietors of the Roxborough, -will find that at no time during the war or since have I cancelled my lease or even temporarily sublet the apartment which I occupy. The relationship which I had with the Rockefeller Foundation, and to which I shall allude in a moment, did not require or necessitate in any way my absence from Canada; nor did it as a matter of fact occasion any absence except in the most transient way. More than that, at present I have not, and for some considerable time past have not had any business connection with any commercial, financial or business interest either in the United States or in Canada. I have had none such since I was honoured with the position of the leadership of my party in August last. I have refused consistently since that time even to entertain the acceptance of a retainer or fee for any work and I have done so in order that I might devote to the public duties which devolve upon me, my entire time and attention.
Now, Sir, let me explain the nature of my relationship to the Rockefeller Foundation. First of all, the Foundation is not in any sense of the word a business or commercial enterprise. It is a philanthropic organization chartered under the laws ot the State of New York in the year 1913. As described in the Act of Incorporation, it is a body corporate "for the purpose of receiving and maintaining a fund or funds and applying the interest and principal thereof to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world." During the war its activities were for the most part in the nature of war work co-operation. It was the first organization in the United States to come to the relief of the Belgians in the matter of food and clothing. It not only assisted the Belgians but its funds
were utilized to bring relief to the starving populations in portions of France as well as Belgium and to the peoples of Poland, Serbia and Armenia at the hour of their. greatest need. It gave millions of dollars in assistance to Red Cross and Y.M.C.A. work in army and navy camps and communities. It equipped and maintained war demonstration hospitals, provided the services of Dr. Alexis Carrel and his staff, hospital and surgical laboratory at Compiegne, France. It carried out many other forms of war work throughout the whole of that terrible period. Apart from the war, its activities relate mainly to medical education and public health demonstration in different parts of the world. It is carrying on its beneficent operations in China, in France, in India, in Egypt and indeed in all parts of the world, and all its work is, as I have indicated, exclusively that of promoting the well-being of mankind.
My duties in connection with the Rockefeller Foundation were to make a study of the problem of -industrial relations with a view to ascertaining if it were possible to contribute in any way toward the solution of that intricate and world wide problem.
I was no more in the employ of the Rockefeller interests, or of any Standard Oil interest, in my association with the Rockefeller Foundation than any librarian of [DOT] a Carnegie library can be said to have been in the employ of the late Andrew Carnegie, or than teachers and professors who are the recipients of pensions from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching can be said to be related to any steel trust or corporation.
Within the last few months, as an expression of international good-will,, the Rockefeller Foundation made to the universities of this Dominion a gift of $5,000,000 to be used for research work in connection with their medical departments. The young men or professors who study under the benefits of this particular gift will occupy a position precisely similar in its relation to any Rockefeller interest to that which I did when I was appointed by the Foundation to make a study of this question of industrial relations.
May I point out that my connection with the Rockefeller Foundation was formed before the war commenced. My acceptance was given in the spring of the year before the war was thought of. At the time it was made, I had been nominated and was in the position of candidate of the

Liberal party in the constituency of North York. When I was asked if I would undertake that study for the Foundation, 1' pointed out that if it meant any change of Residence from Canada, it would be impossible for me to consider it. I was told that I could pursue my researches anywhere I wished, that there was no obligation to live at one place rather than another, that I could go to any part of the world, and have a staff of men to assist me if I so desired, in carrying out the researches which I had been asked to undertake, the sole object being to conduct a study that might be helpful as a contribution towards the solution of industrial problems.
That was the situation when the war came on. I had then to decide, just as every other man in this country had, what, Under existing circumstances, it was best to do.
I had to decide in relation to the Rockefeller Foundation, and the work which I had undertaken, whether I should abandon those studies altogether, or whether I should undertake them in relation to the problems which were growing out of the war. I shall mention in a moment or two certain private considerations of which I was obliged to take account in reaching a decision; but for the present I wish to confine what I have to say to the public reasons which I felt were strong enough to cause me to make the decision I did, a decision which I believed at the time and have ever since believed, was entirely in the right direction.
As hon. gentlemen know, the war had not proceeded very far before it became perfectly apparent that the winning of the war depended upon the successful co-operation of capital and labour in the industries that were engaged in the production of munitions, and the furnishing of war supplies and materials, as well as upon the heroic efforts of the men who were fighting at the front. The governments of the different countries recognized that to be the situation. The Government of Great Britain established, shortly after the beginning of the war, a reconstruction committee, which subsequently became the Ministry ol Reconstruction in England, with a subcommittee on relations between employers and employed, to deal with the problems of industry as they arose during the war, and were likely to arise during the period of reconstruction. The Government of the United States appointed a National War Labour Board, and the Government of Canada-the present Government-appointed the Reconstruction and Development Com-[Mr Mackenzie King.]
mittee of the Cabinet, with a labour subcommittee. The work of all these bodies was to study the problems arising out of the relations between capital and labour with a view, if possible, to avoiding industrial controversy in essential industries during the war and finding means for the rapid development of peaceful and helpful relations in the period after the war.
The work I was doing for the Rockefeller Foundation, both in its purpose, as research, and in its practical effort, was identical with the kind of work which wa^ being done by persons associated with these bodies. Every man associated with , any of these organizations was regarded by his fellow countrymen as rendering a much needed war service, a service for which he was specially qualified, and for which he had been chosen because of special qualifications.
My selection by the Rockefeller Foundation had been made, amongst other reasons, because of the circumstances that during a number of years I had held a position in the Department of Labour of this country as deputy minister of the department, and subsequently as minister, and during that time had had considerable to do, at first hand, and in a practical way with industrial problems. It was believed that with that experience, and with the opportunity the Foundation afforded, a useful service might be rendered.
The results of my work for the Rockefeller Foundation are published in book form. I think some hon. gentlemen may have heard of the book; and here let me say that I am sure the House will realize how extremely embarrassing it is to any one to be obliged to make a reference to his own work. But hon. gentlemen will also realize, I am sure, that if I simply make a general statement such may not prove sufficient under the circumstances. I am therefore obliged to make specific reference to some portion of the work accomplished in this connection. That is my apology and my reason of necessity for referring to one or two things which I wish to place before the House for consideration. Whether the results of my study bear at all helpfully upon the problem of reconstruction or not, hon. members will be able to see for themselves by referring to the hook. It is entitled "Industry and Humanity: A Study in the Problems Underlying Industrial Reconstruction." The book consists of some 550 pages, exclusive of charts and diagrams. Every line of it was written in the

city of Ottawa; every page of proof was read in this city; all of the research work was done in Canada. It was done during the war, and the book itself was published before the Armistice had been *concluded. The Canadian editions have been published by Thomas Allen, of Toronto, the American by Houghton Mifflin, of Boston and New York, and the English *by Constable and Co.
I presume the impression that in some way or another I was connected with the so-called Rockefeller interests grew first of all out of this association with the Foundation to which I have referred. It may also have grown out of the fact that in the early years of the war I spent quite a little time in the state of Colorado, and later, accompanied Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., through the mines of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. May I say to hon. members that the reason I went to Colorado at the time I did was because there had been a situation there very much in the nature of an industrial civil war-it was the most serious industrial situation on this continent. I went of my own volition, under direction or suggestion from no one.
I had been given a perfectly free hand by the Rockefeller Foundation to .do what I thought best in the way of carrying out the work which the trustees of the Foundation had given me the opportunity to perform. I felt that if it were possible to demonstrate in the state of Colorado, under conditions such as existed there, that the application of certain principles to the relations of employers and employees could mot do other than operate in a manner that would be helpful alike to labour, capital .and the public, it would be rendering a service to industry in a place where, and at a time when it was very greatly needed. The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company was one of the companies which had been affected by the strike. It is the largest concern in that state. It employs somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12,000 workers in coal mines, iron mines, and steel works. Like other steel and coal companies, its help was required to provide essential war supplies, -and it had orders from the Allies to be carried out. Because of the Rockefeller interest in that company I believed that my association with the Foundation might gain for me an exceptional opportunity, which it did. I am not going to refer to my work done in that connection. It was work done in public, and hon. members can find out its scope *and significance for themselves if they are sufficiently interested in so doing. All I
wish to state at the moment is that for that service-or whatever measure of service it may have been possible to render in the State of Colorado-I received no payment from any interest or from any individual directly or indirectly concerned with any of the companies with which I had to deal. I undertook the work as a part of the opportunity afforded me by the Rockefeller Foundation, and I carried it out wholly in that spirit.
If the House will permit it, I should feel deeply obliged if, at the conclusion of my remarks, I might be allowed by general consent to place on Hansard one statement which I think will accurately reveal the nature of the work done in Colorado. It is from an authority which no one in this House will question, and is an article Which appeared in the Toronto Globe of October 13, 1915, entitled "Solving Colorado's Civil War by J.A.M." The article is by Dr. J. A. Macdonald, who at the time was editor-in-chief of the Globe, and who visited Colorado while I was there engaged upon the work to which I have just been referring. It was written fcy (Dr. Macdonald at the time, was published in the Globe, and is of record there. If the House denies me the privilege of placing the article on Hansard, hon. gentlemen who may be interested at all in discovering the significance of that work or the truth concerning it will be able to do so by a reference to the files of that paper.
Solving Colorado's Civil War. by J. A. M.
I Iliad spent the whole day interviewing all sorts and conditions of meh, and gathering all sorts of views about the one question of universal interests these days in all these mountain mining regions-Mr. Rockefeller's plan for the complete reorganization of the mining industry in the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, in which he holds 40 per cent of the stock, and to whose conditions he has been giving a direct and personal interest during the past fortnight wholly without precedent in the history of capital and labour.
"Hast week in Toronto we had Associated Press despatches to the Globe describing this unusual trip by Mr. Rockefeller, his meeting with men of all grades in all the camps and in the pits, his conference with them face to face, and his proposals to them for a fresh pack and a new deal. The despatches mentioned Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King as being the magnate's guide, philosopher and friend.
Mackenzie King's Work.
"Almost the first man I met after reaching Denver, two days ago, in the rotunda of the Brown, was Mackenzie King. He has been in Colorado a great deal of his time since joining the Rockefeller Foundation. At the very beginning of his work as Chief Executive for the study at first hand of industrial relations, Mr. COMMONS
King: stipulated that the mining1 camps of Colorado where long- industrial strife issued in actual civil war, and where the Foundation itself is a large holder of corporate securities, provided an immense laboratory for a comprehensive study of the essential facts, the root causes of industrial disturbances and the lines of policy to be adopted if industrial war is to make way for co-operation, prosperity and peace.
"The root idea of the old policy on both sides, both capital and labour, was competition. In the new policy the root idea is co-operation. If the seed of co-operation is nourished and comes to full fruitage it may yield co-partnership. I did not find that Mr. Rockefeller baulked at the idea of capital and labour coming to be partners in the industrial world.
" It was both interesting and significant to observe the effect of the young man's personal touch on men whose hostility was deep-seated and fierce. The great body of the miners voting by secret ballot, after hearing him expound the plan and studying it in its fully-printed form for several days, voted almost unanimously for its approval. A newspaperman who went the rounds of the camps, and whose sympathies were socialistic and anti-capitalistic, confessed to me that what he saw at close range convinced him that Rockefeller is absolutely sincere, resolved to meet the men far more than half-way, and has accepted the principles of industrial co-operation with an honest mind and a serious purpose. This view I found to prevail among the Denver newspapermen. A Chicago journalist who came to Colorado to curse returned to Chicago to bless.
A Straightforward Man.
* "This indeed was the impression made on my own mind by frank conversation and close observations. I did not find this young capitalist other than very straightforward and humanely sympathetic. He accepted the obligations of great wealth and stupendous industrial responsibility as a man " who must give an account."
"It was not difficult to observe the reflex influence of Mackenzie King's personality and teaching on the life^and programme of John D. Rockefeller, jr. I confess that I had real misgivings about King's decision last year to undertake work with the Rockefeller Foundation. I feared its reaction on his own outlook and life work. After observing the situation in Colorado, the change of front not by King, but by Rockefeller, and studying the testimony of newspapermen and others, who assured me that all this that Rockefeller has done is in reality the result of King's careful study of industrial problems in the mines, and of his competent exposition of it to Mr. Rockefeller and his associates, I am entirely reassured. Nor was Mr. Rockefeller at all reluctant to give Mr. King full credit.
King Has Made Good.
" The terms of the new policy have already been sent to the Globe by the Associated Press, but Canadians who have watched Mr. King's steady progress as a student of industrial problems and a leader in industrial reform will be gratified to know that, in dealing with this most gigantic problem of capital and labour at the time and place when strikes, murders, civil war and two hundred indictments were the chief features, he has made abundantly good, justified his own decision of last year,
[Mr Mackenzie King.l
brought honour to Canada's Department of Labour, which he established on sound economic foundations, and gives promise of even larger services in industry and politics in which Canada will share just as beneficially as the United States.
"Mackenzie King will always be a Canadian, makes his headquarters in Ottawa, gives only a part of his time to the Foundation's work outside of Canada, and holds his added study and wider experience for the loyal service of his native country. Certain if this new experiment in Colorado achieves what its initial prospect promises, not Canada alone but the whole industrial world will have cause for gratitude that the misfortune of politics in 1911 left Mackenzie King's hand free for a while to tackle a big man's job."
I have here, also, a letter from Mr. J. F. Welborn, President of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, of Denver, Colorado, which gives a statement from the company's point of view; and presents the significance of the work as it has grown with time. I do not wish to read this letter to the House, though if it were not taking up time unduly I should feel it a privilege to do so. I should be pleased if it might be permitted to appear on Hansard along with the other communication. There is one point in this letter to which I should like to direct attention. Mr. Welborn shows that as a result of the Industrial Councils formed that when the United States came into the war, the coal production in the mines of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company exceeded per man per day that of any of the other coal mines in the United States; and he attributes that success to the joint relations of capital and labour under the plan of industrial representation as drawn up.


LETTER FROM MR. J. F. WELBORN.
[Stage Direction]
The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company,
Denver, Colorado.
J. F. Welborn,
President.
December 20, 1919.
My dear Mr. King-
In the hope that it will be of interest to you and possibly to your friends, I will set forth briefly the work done by our company under new policies inaugurated at your suggestion and op-perated in accordance with your advice. In doing so I have thought it proper to review the method of adoption of those policies.
. You will recall that the coal strike of 1913-14 in Colorado was called off in December, 1914. Immediately thereafter, following out your suggestion, we asked employees at each of the coal mines to select one or more of their number to represent them at joint meetings with company officials for the purpose of discussing matters of mutual concern and of considering means of more effective co-operation in maintaining fair and friendly relations. In response representatives were chosen by secret ballot, the initial meeting between them and company officials being held early in January, 1915.

Frequent conferences between the different company officials and the employees' representatives, both individually and collectively, followed, and at a joint meeting of these representatives and company officials held in October, 1915, the plan of representation of employees and memorandum of agreement between them and the company (of which you made the first draft and rendered valuable assistance in perfecting) were approved, subject to adoption by the coal mine employees and the board of directors of the company. Both of these actions were taken soon thereafter, the vote of the employees being by secret ballot and showing a majority of over 84 per cent in favour of the adoption of the plan. The total number voting approximated 75 per cent of the regular working force.
It is. perhaps, only fair to say that some ot the officials of the company, as well as some of the mine workmen, entertained the feeling that it would be impossible or impracticable to make the principles laid down in the industrial plan effective. However, almost without exception, both wage earners and management officials accepted the new regime established with the determination to do their utmost to make it a success. That we have succeeded there is no doubt in the minds of either the wage earners, company officials or the public which our industry serves.
Under the provisions of the plan, employees have not only actively participated in the work of preventing and adjusting differences, but have taken a very active part in establishing a community spirit in the several camps and in improving working and living conditions, including a consideration of character of dwelling houses to be built, the management of club houses, improvement in educational facilities, the adoption of means of recreation suitable to the entire population of the camp and the introduction of ideas tending to reduce aecidents and make the work of coal mining more safe.
Hardly a month passes without the adoption by the management of recommendations made by the Safety and Accidents Committees, which are composed of an equal number of miners and company officials.
No differences with the employees have arisen that were not readily and satisfactorily adjusted through the machinery provided in the industrial plan. The nation-wide strike of November 1 was opposed by a large majority of our employees, as was evidenced by their expressions through secret ballot and the fact that it did not materially affect our production.
The improved living conditions at our mines and the assurance of fair treatment under the operation of the industrial plan are responsible, we believe, for a lack of shortage of miners at our properties, when a general shortage exists in other mining districts. It may be of interest to you to know that when a committee representing the National Fuel Association, in a survey of coal mining conditions in the country, visited our properties it expressed surprise that we were working with a full force of men and employed no labour agents to secure mine workmen from other sections.
A recent report of the Committee of Recreation and Education in Huerfano county, where we operate seven mines, contained a statement, significant of the influence of that committee on school questions, which read as follows:
" Mrs. Martha M. Thorne, County Superintendent of Schools of Huerfano county, called at Ideal, relative to school there. During the course of our interview she said that the school problem in Huerfano county, from the standpoint of her office, was no difficult problem, as the schools located in the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company camps were kept in an up-to-date condition m every respect, and that other schools in the country tried, as far as possible, to imitate them.
The various changes in wage rates that have taken place during the last four years have been made by unanimous action of employees representatives and company officials in conf GFGnc©.
During the winter of 1916-17, prior to the time the United States entered the world war, the employees' representatives and company officials entered on a campaign for increased coal production at our mines to help meet the abnormal calls on this country's mines from our own factories and for export to the allies. In January, 1917, our average output per day per miner was 5.83 tons. This was gradually increased until 6.33 tons per day average was reached in May, 1917. Interest In this movement was kept alive and further stimulated by a campaign for increased production inaugurated by the National Fuel Administration in the summer of 1918, with the result that monthly increases in daily production per man were made, the high mark of 7.26 tons being recorded in October, 1918, which latter figure represented an increase of approximately 25% over the average daily production at the beginning of 1917. During this campaign for greater efficiency the employees at each mine selected Production Committees of their own, in whose hands the management placed the power to grant leaves of absence to workmen, and as a result unnecessary lost time was reduced from 10% in June, 1918, to slightly over 4% in October of that year.
The increased efficiency shown by greater production and less idle time made a record that, so far as we are able to learn, was not equalled elsewhere. The best figures obtainable indicate that in other important coal fields the
[Stage Direction]
time that the mines work.
The plan of representation of employees was adopted at the steel works, in the same manner as at the coal mines, early in 1916, and, without going into detail, its operation there has been along the same lines and with the same success as at the mining properties.
In a series of conferences between employees' representatives and company officials an actual eight-hour working day was adopted at the steel works in 1918 in the place of the former twelve-hour day, which had always prevailed in the steel industry, and which, generally speaking, is still in effect in other steel manufacturing plants in this country.
In the purchase of Liberty Bonds and contributions to the various war funds our employees at the steel plant and mining properties participated to the extent of practically 100%. Campaigns for these funds were conducted by committees composed principally, and in many instances entirely, of wage earners, and developed a friendly rivalry between the various properties in the mining department, as well as between that department and the steel department.
We are confident that the spirit and effectiveness with which our employees responded to the Government's call for increased efficiency and financial help in the war are at least equal to what was done along similar lines in any other industry in this country, and we are very sure that too much credit for this accomplish-
[Stage Direction]
ment cannot be given to the machinery, controlling the relationships between the company management and its wage earners, which was proposed by you, and in the operation of which, since its installation, we have had the benefit of your frequent advice. Indeed, I feel that the part you have had in the establishment of the new and better relationships in our industry represents a contribution to the late war of inestimable value. I can consistently so express myself, because I had some misgivings as to the wisdom of the course you laid out for us, and am now convinced it has exceeded the most sanguine expectations expressed at its beginning.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) J. P. Welborn. Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King,
The Roxborough,
Ottawa, Canada.
After the Colorado work had received some public attention, I began to receive from the heads of several of the large industries in the United States communications asking if I would come and make a study of their industrial conditions with a view to advising them as to methods of forming joint boards of employers and employees and aiding in the prevention and settlement of industrial differences. I have a number of such letters-I do not intend to read them, nor shall I ask that they be placed on Hansard-but I shall be very pleased to show the communications to any hon. gentleman who may be interested in seeing them. I shall give to the House the names of some of the industrial concerns by which I was asked to come and lend assistance in matters of industrial controversy. It will then be open to any member of this House, or to any individual in the country, to write to the heads of these concerns or to the employees connected with them, and ascertain for himself exactly the nature of the service rendered.
When in September of last year, at the time I was about to contest the riding of Prince, I saw that statements of the kind I have been dealing with this afternoon were being busily circulated, I wrote to several of the different industrial concerns by whom my services had been retained and asked if there were any objection to making reference in public to' the nature of the work which I had been asked to perform. I had felt that having been retained as an industrial adviser there was a certain obligation upon me to regard any service that I might have been able to render as confidential, and for that reason, as well as haying no desire to traffic in patriotism for political ends, I had sought up to that time carefully to avoid any reference at all to [Mr Mackenzie King.]
work done during the period of the war.
I shoifld like to place on Hansard two or three of the letters which were sent in reply, and which will speak for themselves. Hon! gentlemen, will see in a moment that they are from some of the largest and most important industries in the United States, industrial concerns that had very much to do with the production of war materials and the furnishing of war supplies. These communications have been received by me in answer, as I have said, to my inquiry of these companies as to whether I might feel at liberty to make public reference to certain services rendered during the war.
The letter I have in my hand is from the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited, of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and is written by Mr. J. W. Powell, Vice-President of the company. At the time my services were requested by this particular industry, in the connection I have mentioned, it was employing 70,000 men. Mr. Powell writes:
Bethlehem Shipbuilding- Corporation Limited.
Bethlehem, Pa., September 22, 1919. Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King,
The Roxborough,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:-I am very glad to take this opportunity to tell you in a form that you may use as you may see fit, that we found your advice and counsel at the time we called on you in the spring of 1918, in connection with the labour situation in our shipyards, of very great benefit in assisting us to arrive at a plan of action that would help us to preserve industrial peace and to improve relations between the company and its employees.
At the time we asked for assistance, there was a great deal of unrest among our labour and we believe that the advice you gave us was of material assistance in reducing this unrest and in correspondingly increasing the efficiency in the production of ships.
As this company is far and away the largest shipbuilding concern in the world and as it produced a very large percentage of all the ships actually completed in this country during the period of its participation in the war, i.e., something like 60 per cent of the destroyers and over 20 per cent of the merchant craft, your assistance was evidently of real value from the standpoint of helping to win the war.
Yours very truly,
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Ltd.
By (signed) J. W. Powell,
Vice-President.
The next communication is from the Bethlehem Steel Company of South Bethlehem. Pennsylvania, and is written by Mr.N E. G. Grace, the President of that company. At the time I visited Bethlehem, this concern was employing about 50,000 work-eis. Mr. Grace writes:

Bethlehem Steel Company.
South Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,
September 26, 1919.
Dear Mr. King:-My attention has just been called to an article which appeared recently in the I.ondon Telegraph relating to the accomplishment, of the Ministry of Munitions of the British Government in the late war.
Naturally I was interested in reading a statement, referred to therein, made by the Deputy Minister of Munitions and in which he said!
"Reference was made by Mr. Asquith to the fact that large orders for shells were placed in the United States of America and Canada before the Ministry of Munitions was started. Such orders were placed. They were orders for complete rounds, but when the time came for delivery the components were not forthcoming, and the shell bodies had to be brought over and completed in this country with components produced by the Ministry of Munitions. An exception to this statement must be made in regard to the Bethlehem supplies, which were well delivered and proved of immense service to the armies."
X think it is now well recognized that if it had not been for the assistance our plants were privileged to give to the Allies previous to the entry of this government in this war the result might have been different.
In reflecting the credit for the achievements of this country, which is shared by every one of our employees who contributed to the result of the oiitcome, I cannot in this connection refrain from calling to mind with much appreciation the great work to which you gave your time and talent during the world's crisis.
At a crucial time when we were contending with an unprecedented industrial unrest, your counsel and advice in the construction and development of a plan which when installed proved most conducive to promoting cordial relations with our employees during the emergency, resulting in the obtaining of the maximum efficiency in the production of war munitions, constituted X feel a real service not only to this country but to the Allies during the war.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) E. G. Grace,
-v	President.
Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King,
The Roxborough,
Ottawa, Canada.
I have here a letter from the General Electric Company, which is another of the largest and most important industrial concerns on this continent. During the war it was employing over 50,000 workers, 12,000 or 13,000 of whom were engaged in the particular branch of which Mr. Richard H. Rice, the acting manager and writer of this letter, was then in charge. His letter is as follows:
General Electric Company.
West Lynn, Mass, September 29, 1919. Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King,
The Roxborough,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-During the great war it was the privilege of the General Electric Company to d>
effective work in the creation and production of devices of direct assistance in the winning of that war.
Of these devices perhaps the most directly useful ones were those which enabled the submarine warfare to be effectively combatted.
These devices were in the nature of detectors and they are so effective that they enabled submarines in motion to be located 30 miles away * their course of motion plotted and intercepted ; and even submarines quiescent on the bottom of the ocean were located and destroyed. These devices were largely used by the British and American navies both in the waters directly about the United Kingdom and also in Italian waters and off the American coast.
Other apparatus produced by our company is too numerous to mention; shells, shell cases, fuses, airplane compasses, portable army searchlights, wireless telephone apparatus, and a thousand and one other devices were actively produced in large quantities for the use of the United States Government and for the Allied forces.	<
I mention these matters not for the purpose of glorifying the work of the General Electric Company in the war. but to indicate that our industry was considered as an absolutely essential one. This is perhaps also shown by the fact that the United States Government sent a large body of troops to our Lynn works without any knowledge of the management, for the purpose of protecting it against destruction by bombs or otherwise.
If it is admitted that our industry was an essential one, it must also be admitted that contentment of the labouring forces, continuity of operations and freedom from labour disturbances was an essential feature. In connection with this matter, and particularly at the time of greatest stress, when the production of the works was temporarily interrupted by a general strike, and for the period since that time, we have been greatly indebted to your sound, intelligent, progressive and humanitarian advice; and profiting by this advice we have established at our Lynn works a system of industrial relations which gives our employees a large voice in the determination of working conditions and conditions of employment. This, in my opinion, puts us in the forefront among organizations of industry in dealing with the human problem.
I was intimately associated with you for some time in the discussions which preceded the adoption of this method of dealing and have had direct charge of the workings of it since that time, and I know the value of your advice and the inspiration which it has given me in carrying out the work.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Richard H. Rice,
Acting Manager.
I may say that the letter from Mr. Rice was accompanied by one from Mr. E. W. Rice, junior, the president of the company, mentioning the extension of the plan adopted by the Lynn works to the other factories of the company, and endorsing what Mr. Richard Rice had written.
One other communication to which I would ask hon. gentlemen kindly to listen is from the Great Western Sugar Company which has its factories in Colorado, Wyom-
[Stage Direction]
ing, Nebraska, and Montana-some fourteen in all-and which during the war was employing some 7,000 workers. This letter from the president of that company reads:
The Great Western Sugar Company.
General Offices,
Sugar Building.
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.,
November 4. 1919.
Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King,
The Roxborough,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. King:-Upon my return to this city alter an absence of about three months, I And your valued communication of September 17, and hasten to acknowledge it.
Let me say at the outset that in my opinion the service which you rendered American industry during the war was not only a distinct contribution to the Allied cause during that period, but has been of great valui during the trying times since the signing of the Armistice.
I am able to speak more specifically concerning our own industry. The matter of furnishing an adequate supply of sugar for the military forces as well as for the civilian population was generally recognized as one of the serious problems of the war. The beet sugar industry is one composed not alone of manufacturing plants which can be speeded up at will; it comprises, in addition to the factories, thousands of farms and farmers, and thousands of field and factory workers. To function most effectively there must be the utmost co-operation and understanding between these various groups. Realizing this, and realizing also that an unbiased outsider would probably be able to analyze and view the problems of the industry more clearly than any one withiir it, we invited you to make a general survey of our operations, with the particular purpose in view of obtaining suggestions and plans which would insure a harmonious relationship between two various groups in the business.
All of us who were in contact with you during your vigorous and thorough examination of our situation appreciate the value of your contribution. It was a contribution the effects of which did not cease with the ending of the war. During the present troublous period it is very gratifying, and must be particularly so to you, to know that our operations are proceeding so smoothly. In our own case, our production this season will be from 20 to 25 per cent greater than for the previous season. The production of an extra 40,000 or 50,000 tons of such a concentrated foodstuff as sugar at a time like this is, in my humble opinion, of considerable value to everybody.
I assure you that it is a privilege to be able to express myself to you in this sense. With assurances of my high respect and regard,
Believe me,
Sincerely yours,
(signed) W. L. PETRIKIN, President.
I might quote also from other equally important concerns. I have here a letter from Mr. Harold F. McCormick, the President of the International Harvester Company, [Mr Mackenzie King.)
which has some 35,000 employees in the United States and Canada, one from Mr. J. H. Wheelwright, the late President of the Consolidation Coal Company, which oper-[DOT] ates mines in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Kentucky, and employs from 8,000 to 9,000 workers; one from Mr. C. S. Robinson, Vice-president of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company of Youngstown, Ohio, which has about 10,000 employees; and letters from the officers or directors of other less important concerns. All go to show that these gentlemen at least regarded that I had been able to render a substantial service to the industries with which they are connected and which were essential in time of war, and are essential industries at the present time.
I have referred to these matters to illustrate why, recognizing the opportunity which was mine when the war came on, having had to take into account, as I had, certain personal obligations as well as previous training and equipment, I took then what I believed to be the course that would enable me to take the most useful part that I could possibly take in the service of my country and the cause of the allies at that time; and why I continue to believe I was not wrong in the judgment I then formed.
Mr. Speaker, I should be at a loss to understand how it is conceivable that two such gentlemen as those I have mentioned, members ol honourable and learned professions could stoop to the deliverances they have and go on then to imply that there was some kind of continuing relationship on my part with industries in the United States calculated to prove inimical to Canada, were it not that recently there has appeared in the Canadian press a despatch which refers to a survey made for the Standard Oil Company of Indiana in January of last year. Let me point this out to my hon. friends, so that there will be no misunderstanding:	I have said that during
the period of the war I had no connection of any kind with any industry that was associated with Standard Oil interests. That is true. Since the war, and after all the work to which I have to-day alluded had been completed, I received from the chairman of the board of directors of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana a communication asking if I would make a survey of the company's plants and assist the company in drawing up some plan of joint councils between the company and its employees which would be of service in helping to maintain good relations. I accepted that^ opportunity and spent a few weeks making a study of the working conditions

of the men employed in that industry, with results that are apparent in the despatch to which I have made reference.
Let me say, so that there can be no misunderstanding as to the nature of any of the work done, at any time, that all of it was in the nature of assisting in the formation of joint industrial councils much along the line recommended in the report of the Whitley Committee, and which at a conference held in the city of Ottawa last summer between employers and employees, was endorsed as a method of procedure highly in the interests of both capital and labour. It consisted in setting out known and orderly methods of procedure for the adjustment of industrial differences, in the providing of machinery for conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial controversies; in giving to labour a voice in the determination of its own working and living conditions, and in the framing of joint agreements as to terms of employment, working and living conditions by which rights were specifically defined and to which reference could be made in case of dispute between employer and employees. In every instance there was a provision that nothing in the arrangements come to, or in the agreements made should deprive any man of the right to belong to any legitimate union. I mention that lest by any chance there might be an endeavour from any quarter to misconstrue anything in that connection.
I have taken the trouble to find the despatch which appeared in the Chicago papers and to which' reference was made in our own papers, and which I take to he the ground upon which the gentlemen in Montreal had based their reference to_ a continuing relationship on my part with some American companies. The following is the despatch as it appears in the Chicago Tribune of February 19, 1920. It is headed "11,090 Standard Oil Aids Fix Own Pay Rate-Get 11.11 per cent Boost and Six-Day Week," and is as follows:
11,000 Standard Oil Aids Fix Own Pay Raise.
Get 11.11 % Boost and Six-Day Week.
A wage increase of 11.11 per cent for 11,000 refinery workers was announced yesterday by the Standard Oil Company of Indiana. Coincidentally, all shift men go from a seven-day week to a six-day week, a radical change in the company's manufacturing policy. The new schedule becomes effective on March 1, and it applies in refineries at Whiting, Ind., Wood River. 111., Sugar Creek, Mo., and Caspar and Greyhull, Wyo.
What is most significant is the fact that the new wage and hour schedule was worked out by the employees themselves, through the agency of their industrial councils.
Last June, as a step in "democracy in industry," the Standard Oil Company established an employees' council system, drawn up by W. L. Mackenzie King, leader of the Liberal party in Canada. Through joint committees, on which the men and management have equal representation, the workers were given a direct voice in the adjustment of wages and hours.
Work Out Six-Day System.
The process of gasoline manufacture is such that refineries must be operated every hour of the day, every day of the week. Up to 1915, shift workers worked twelve-hour shifts seven days a week. The company in that year put in an eight-hour shift with an increase, giving the men as much pay for eight hours' work as they had been getting for twelve. But the seven-day week was continued.
After the industrial council system was adopted, Col. R. W. Stewart, head of the hoard of directors, asked the employees' councils to work out a scheme that would make a six-day week practicable.
The result is a new schedule, which gives all shift workers thirty-two consecutive hours off each week. Under the old plan the men worked fifty-six hours a week; under the new they work 50.4, or a net reduction of 5.6 hours a week. The 11.11 per cent increase in wages makes the pay for six days equal to that received under the old seven-day week.
Others also Boosted.
A similar increase of 11.11 per cent in hourly wages is also declared for refinery workers other than shift men. Hours are not to be changed, except that men working forty-four hours a week may increase it to forty-eight hours, if they wish. This affects common labourers, machinists, blacksmiths, boiler makers and others.
I have here a letter from Mr. R. W. Stewart, the chairman of the board ot directors of that company, and from which I shall read only one paragraph. It was received in reply to the circular communication I sent out last fall. The paragraph I am about to read explains the nature and circumstances of the request made of me by the company. The letter is dated Chicago, October 7, 1919, in it Mr. Stewart says:
When I was selected as chief executive of this company, I became convinced that there was lack of contact between the employees and the management of the company, and that the situation was one which, if not cared for, would possibly result in great harm by reason of misunderstandings, suspicion and ignorance of the conditions. I looked over the field of advisers on questions of this kind very carefully, and, after the most painstaking search, selected you as the best equipped, ablest and most conscientious adviser in the field. The board of directors of this company agreed with me, and you were invited to examine our plants and look into the conditions under which our twenty-two thousand employees were working, and to formulate a plan which would insure the fullest contact, and, once established, would be maintained to the satisfaction and betterment of all of us. You undertook the work, spent
[Stage Direction]
many weeks in personally examining our plants and workmen, and finally reported to tlhe management a plan which has met the approval of the employees and the management of this company, and is actually working out to the satisfaction of the entire organization. We all consider it the best plan of industrial relations in existence, and believe that it comprehends and includes the strength of all plans of this kind ever suggested and the weakness of none of them. It is daily strengthening the bonds of good-will, confidence and understanding in our entire organization.
Let me point out a feature mentioned in the paragraph just quoted as true also of the other concerns of which I have spoken that as regards all of these joint councils, they were worked out and adopted only after approval by the employees as well as by the management.
I have nothing further to say in regard to the public reasons which actuated me in taking the course I did during the period of the war and which I believe enabled me to perform a kind and measure of service greater than any I could have performed in any other way, had there been like opportunity to take any other course. I would ask the House to permit me to refrain from the spoken word, and to read in conclusion just a few words in reference to the personal reasons which were also a controlling factor in guiding me in my actions during the period oi the war.
There remains the statement that I was young, and a bachelor. I am now in my forty-sixth year. When the war commenced, I was in my fortieth year. Shortly before that time, my father, a barrister and solicitor, and one of the lecturers at the Law School in Toronto, was stricken with blindness, and obliged to give up the practice of law and lecturing at the Law School. He and my mother and unmarried sister lived together at our home in Toronto. My brother, who for a qumoer of years was a practising physician in this city, some little time prior to the war, after an attack of influenza complicated by double pneumonia, developed tuberculosis, and was obliged to give up the practice of his profession and for the greater part of two years to spend his time in a sanatorium. Later, he and his wife and little children took up permanent residence in Colorado. There was no one left to share the responsibilities of our home under these sad and trying circumstances, but my married sister and myself. My married sister had, as well, her own family to consider.
On April 4, 1915, within the first few months of the war, my unmarried sister died. That left my father and mother alone. On August 30, 1916, my father died. After [Mr Mackenzie King.]
spending a few weeks with my invalid brother in Denver, and two or three months with my married sister, my mother came to reside with me at the Roxborough, here in Ottawa. My mother was critically ill most of the year she was with me, and on December 18, 1917, she, too, died. My brother, I rejoice to say, though still an invalid, has fought his disease so successfully as to be able to publish a book, entitled "The Battle With Tuberculosis and How to Win It," which has found a place in our military hospitals. The inscription of this volume, "Gratefully and affectionately dedicated to my wife and to my brother," speaks for itself.
As I look back upon those years of the war, so full of poignant suffering for the whole of mankind, I cannot but experience a sense of gratitude, that in that world ordeal it was given to me to share in so intimate a way the sufferings of others, and, with it all, so large a measure of opportunity to do my duty, as God gave it to me to see my duty, at that time.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The rule that only those documents which are read in the House shall bo incorporated in Hansard has always been very closely adhered to. Exceptional cases, however, have arisen through unusual circumstances. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) desires to incorporate in Hansard one .article from a newspaper and one letter, they not having been read. I take it that it may be construed that this is one of those unusual circumstances, and I, therefore, put the question to the House whether the hon. gentleman shall have leave to incorporate these documents in Hansard.
Unanimous consent of the House granted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mi'. Boivin in the Chair.
['Very well, if there is no possibility of our getting through and there are many memlbers who desire to speak, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.\nMotion agreed to: progress reported.\nOn motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.\nWednesday, April 21, 1920.']
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: We will take
up a few items of Public Works.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-Ottawa Parliament building-restoration-the plans for the said building and the method to be adopted for securing the reconstruction thereof to be subject to the approval of the joint committee appointed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, $2,000,000.


Mr. STEVENS:: I desire to bring to the attention of the committee, as forcibly as I can in a very few words, what I consider to be the imperative necessity of taking into consideration the arrangement of this chamber, so that about 45 or 50 per cent

of the members of the House may be privileged to hear some of the business that is being transacted, who at present are largely excluded from that privilege. This is a real problem; it must be faced sooner or later, and I think the sooner it is faced the better. It may be impossible to remedy conditions this year, but that
4 p.m. should certainly be done before another session of Parliament. In my estimation-and in this I think many other hon. members will agree with me- if the present arrangement be continued, there will undoubtedly be a large number of the members of the House sitting at this end, at least, who will find themselves more or less separated from the business of the country through utter inability to hear what is going on. The acoustics of this chamber are very good where there is attention in the House and a member is making a set speech; but where we are simply carrying on business in short sentences, such as, perhaps, eighty per cent of the business consists of, one can hear nothing at all. I have been sitting here on many occasions-and other members will bear me out in this-when ministers or leading members on the Opposition side and other members have been carrying on in conversational tones debates about which we know nothing at all; many items of business will be called, and we cannot hear even what the item under discussion is. The business of this country cannot be carried on under such circumstances. I am not offering this in the form of criticism of any committee nor of the architect; but it is the duty of the House, and more particularly of the Government, as the directing factor, to see that this condition is remedied. I wish to make to the committee this suggestion which I hope will be seriously considered. It might be better to change the whole form of seating in the House by placing the Speaker's chair in the centre on one side and then arranging the seating in a semicircle around that point. If such an arrangement were'made, then any member of the Government or of the Opposition rising in his place would speak directly so that at least two-thirds of the members could hear him. As the matter stands at present, one speaks directly across the chamber, and as I said a moment ago, perhaps forty per cent of the members cannot hear what is going on.
I noticed one or two of the ministers smiling when I made my suggestion in regard to complete rearrangement of the chamber. Such a change may be radical, but we must take into consideration the necessity of making radical changes in this chamber before we shall have any satisfactory method of carrying on business.
We asked some time ago that the leaders of the Government and of the Opposition should kindly move their seats nearer to the centre of the Chamber in order that hon. members might have a better opportunity of hearing what they had to say. This request was not only refused, but utterly ignored. I think that private members are entitled to some consideraion, and I wish to bring strongly and forcibly to the attention of the House the importance of this matter, which is one that cannot be ignored.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: May I, as a moderate member, be allowed to endorse the very real grievance of my hon. friend from Vancouver, but to offer a much less drastic suggestion than that which he proposes to .meet the difficulties of the present situation.
I have shared to the full my hon. friend's desire to participate in the knowledge that is conveyed from one side of the Chamber to the other in what one might describe as whispered confidences. I observed with very great pleasure that the Minister of jMilitia '(Hon. Mr. Guthrie) in his conduct of the committee stage of the Franchise Bill adopted; with all the other evidences of ability which he gave in dealing with that measure, the very commonsense procedure of coming pretty nearly to the centre of the front benches. That really met any real grievance or ground of complaint so far as we in this particular part of the House are concerned. May I offer to hon. ministers and those occupying positions on the front benches the suggestion that it may be practical to follow the excellent example of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, in the committee stages of Bills, or when ministers desire to get their estimates through. I should hesitate indeed to suggest to any one so steeped in moderate conservatism as my right hon. friend, the leader of the House, that he should go the length of departing Very far from the position, in the immediate proximity of the Speaker, which he occupies with so much dignity, ability and satisfaction to all of us. With regard to the general qualities of the House, I think that every hon. member endowed with a reasonable volume of voice, and with an equal desire to make himself heard, will find the acoustics of the Chamber very satisfactory. It is a large and beautiful chamber, however, and any one experienced in public speaking knows that a speaker must adapt himself to the place in which he is speaking; and nine-tenths of the members, if they will try

to raise their voices in keeping with the size of the chamber, will be heard without much difficulty. With all respect, and with all the emphasis that I have any right to use, I make the very modest suggestion that the example of the Minister of Militia, in the matter to which I have referred, be followed.


George Green Foster: Two very excellent illustrations of the acoustic properties of this chamber we have just heard in the hon. gentlemen who have just spoken. I heard every word which my hon. friend from Vancouver uttered, and more than heard the remarks of my hon. friend from Red Deer, a fact that amply proves, I think, the carrying qualities of this chamber, and shows perhaps that the main difficulties arise from our own individual defects in speech. I am glad to find such a high and appreciative spirit with reference to my hon. friend, the Minister of Militia, and what he has done; and I am going to request the Acting Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Reid), immediately to move further down the room in order to ascertain what effect such a change will have.


Mr. McMASTER:: I may say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver and the hon. member for Red Deer, because I do not think that the mere temporary transfer of a good-natured minister to a place a couple of seats down the chamber will fully meet the situation. I speak with a great deal of unselfishness in this matter because I have the good fortune to have been allocated one of the best seats in the House for hearing and seeing, and I have not had occasion, as I have frequently had during the last three years, to shout "louder, louder." I made of myself a sort of bailiff in this respect for three sessions, and I did so with advantage not only to myself but to other members, and I think that other hon. members might adopt the same course and cry "louder" -when they do not hear.
I have been devoting some little thought to the matter of acoustics, having looked up pictures of the British House of Commons to see the situation of their chamber.
I see that the Speaker's chair is perhaps twelve or fifteen feet away from the wall, and I think it might be quite feasible-and certainly we should try the experiment before adopting the more drastic proposal of altering the orientation of this chamber -to move the Speaker's throne in this House ten or twelve feet further down the chamber. Then we might have the table with the Deputy Speaker, the Clerk and the 
Assistant Clerk ten or fifteen, or perhaps twenty feet, still further down, and the Acting Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition might sit two desks down. In this way hon. gentlemen at the lower end of the chamber would be brought nearer the speakers.
The member who is speaking will be farther away from the iSpeaker and therefore he will speak louder. In that way perhaps we can overcome the difficulty. I think this well worth trying and I would urge it upon the Government. I must say I do so without selfish motives because there is not a word which falls from the right hon. the Acting Prime Minister's lips, no matter how dulcet or low the tone may be which I am unable to catch in the position I occupy.


Mr. J. D. REID :: In reference to this item I think I could give a little explanation. I am glad to make this change with a view to seeing whether my voice can be heard better over the whole room.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


John Dowsley Reid: The total amount expended on the Parliament Buildings to the end of the last fiscal year, March 31, 1920, was $7,037,921.74. We are asking for an appropriation of $2,000,000 which will bring the total to $9,037,921.74. The estimate we have at the present time is that it will take about $10,000,000 to complete the buildings [DOT]and allow the contractors to close.


Mr. PROULX:: What percentage is the
contractor receiving over $5,000,000?


John Dowsley Reid: Eight per cent up to
$4,000,000 ; 7 per cent over that amount, and nothing over $5,000,000.


Mr. FIELDING:: Does the minister remember the estimate which was made at the beginning?


John Dowsley Reid: I was on that committee and as far as my memory goes it was around $5,000,000 or a little less. The contractors were so sure that it would not amount to more than $5,000,000 that they were willing to limit their commission to that amount. Of course war conditions and advances in prices will practically mean a doubling of that amount before the building is completed.


Mr. BUREAU:: The minister says that
so far $7,000,000 have been expended. Does that include the $2,000,000 voted last year?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: I see in the Estimates,
item 128 "Public buildings; Ottawa Parlia-

merit Buildings," etc. In the column 192021 you ask for $2,000,000 and then coming immediately after the last item there is
Appropriations not required
for 1920-21	$1,000,000 ,
Which shows that in 1919-20 there had been expended, appropriated, credited or charged to the total of $3,000,000 this amount of $1,000,000 and it would only leave $1,000,000 to be expended in 1920-21.


John Dowsley Reid: The $2,000,000 that we are voting now is for the Parliament Buildings alone. In last year's Estimates there was an item of $1,000,000 for buildings other than the Parliament Buildings that we are dropping this year as we do not propose to proceed with the work.


Jacques Bureau: That is not an explanation. You are asking Parliament to vote money for:
Ottawa Parliament Building-Restoration- the plans for the said building and the method to be adopted for securing the reconstruction thereof to be subject to the approval of the joint committee appointed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, $2,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: You have in the column 1920-21, $2,000,000. You say there: "W; are asking for $2,000,000 but we do not want the $2,000,000; we just want $1,000,000," as $1,000,000 voted in 1919-20 was not required.


George Green Foster: That was for
other buildings and it is not proposed to expend it this year.


Jacques Bureau: You charge it as having been expended last year.


George Green Foster: No.


Jacques Bureau: Why does it come in the column for 1919-20?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend
will see that it - is put in the column for 1919-20 because it was voted for 1919-20. But
1919-	20 has passed and the million has not been expended on these other buildings. Therefore it shows that the amount was voted last year and that it is not being voted this year.


Jacques Bureau: I may be defective in my understanding of the English language but in one year you say that an amount of $1,000,000 is not required while you are asking for $2,000,000 for the years 1920-21.


George Green Foster: That is right.


Jacques Bureau: But you say that the appropriation of $1,000,000 is not required for
1920-	21.


George Green Foster: That is merely to carry out the comparison. If that $1,000,000 was not carried out in that column it would appear as if the $1,000,000 which was voted last year had been used. To make it plain, and according to the truth, that column shows you two things, first, that it was voted last year but that it was not used last year and that therefore it has lapsed.


Jacques Bureau: If it was voted last year why do you keep the column in the Estimates headed "Revote"? If it was not expended last year why not put it in the first column as a revote of $1,000,000?


George Green Foster: Because it is not proposed to use the $1,000,000 for the purpose for which that money was appropriated last year. That $1,000,000 was appropriated last year for a certain purpose but it was not used. This year is one in which economy is to be practised and it is not proposed to use the $1,000,000; therefore it goes into the unappropriated column. The appropriation of last year is not being carried over into this year.


Jacques Bureau: I am not satisfied with the explanation.


George Green Foster: Sleep over it.


Jacques Bureau: /No, I will not sleep over it; I will get it through my head before I go to bed if it is possible to do so from the very muddy explanation which I have got. Last year you did not expend $1,000,000 which was voted for the Parliament Buildings? Is that the statement you made?


George Green Foster: No, the statement I made was that this $1,000,000 was appropriated for public buildings other than these Parliament Buildings. The appropriation voted last year was not used. If we proposed to use it again this year this $1,000,000 would appear in the column for 1920-21 as a re-vote. Then you would have a re-vote and consequently $1,000,000 more to be expended this year.


Jacques Bureau: That makes the case worse.


George Green Foster: I give it up.


Jacques Bureau: According to the right hon. gentleman's statement, in 1919-20 you spent only $1,000,000 instead of $2,000,000. Is that right?


George Green Foster: No.


Jacques Bureau: You appropriated '$2,000,000.


George Green Foster: I do not know how much was appropriated for general public buildings but I do know that $1,000,000 was not spent.


Jacques Bureau: You ask for $2,000,000 this year?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Why do. you ask for that when it is not required?


George Green Foster: We do not.


Jacques Bureau: You do; you say that $1,000,000 was not required and you ask us to vote $2,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps I can explain it. Last year, in the Estimates for 1919-20 we voted $2,000,000 to be expended on the Parliament Buildings, then we voted $1,000,000 as well to be spent on~ other buildings. We spent the $2,000,000 on the Parliament Buildings and that left the other $1,000,000 which we did not spend. That $1,000,000 was not used and of course we put it in here in the column headed "191920" to show that although it was voted last year we are not voting anything for these buildings this year. We are asking for $2,000,000 to be expended on these buildings in 1920-21. The $2,000,000 voted for the Parliament Buildings for 1919-20 was expended.


Jacques Bureau: I conclude that we have printed on this page of the Estimates something that is absolutely useless except to give the Government an opportunity of coming to us and saying that last year they came to us and asked us to vote $1,000,000 for which they had no use and which they have not expended.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the explanation is this: The Estimates have been made out this year the same as in every previous year. Take an item which appears on the opposite side of the book. Hon. gentlemen will see "Chambly-Improvements in the canals." Last year we voted $40,000. This year we ask $17,000. The statement shows that we spent $23,000 and we are asking for $17,000. The votes of 1919-20 are there so that the committee will have before it a statement of the amount voted last year so as to 'be able to compare with the sum we are voting this year. The items which were not used in 1919-20 and will not be required this year will not appear in the Estimates for 1920-21.


Jacques Bureau: If the appropriations are not required for 1920-21 I do not see what

is the use of having them appear. Unless by keeping the amounts there it is desired to fool the committee to the extent of a few millions, I do not see what is the use of having these items appear when they are not required.


Mr. CURRIE:: Can my hon. friend point to any single instance during the regime of the late Administration or that of the present Government where the items weTe not shown exactly as. they appear here? My hon. friend is trying to make a lot of wool out of nothing.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman forgets that this is a period of reconstruction and improvement-we even want to improve the voices of members, their hearing, and the acoustics of the Chamber. It is high time that there should be improvement made with respect to these Estimates so that it should be made abundantly clear to members what is meant, and thus save a lot of discussion about it.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I wish to ask a question which has weighed very heavily on the minds of a large number of people. It will be remembered that in the conflagration which destroyed the former Parliament Buildings, the library was saved by the prompt closing of the iron doors at the entrance to it by one of the attendants. The fire, which was close at hand, was prevented from getting into the library and no damage was done there. However, the fire extended in. other directions, tongues of flame as long as two hundred feet being developed by the great draught. Now it has appeared to some people that if there had been iron doors on the corridors in other parts of the building at least two-thirds of the structure would have been saved as well as valuable lives. It may be said that the present building is fireproof. Well, the wood in it is not, nor is the furniture, and should a fire start very great damage might be done as in the case of the old buildings. Has the simple expedient of having iron doors in any of the corridors, the same as at the Library, been adopted?


John Dowsley Reid: No provision, as I understand, has been made for iron doors in the present building. We are assured that the building is absolutely fireproof, except with respect to the wood in the Chamber, so that in case of fire its effects would be localized. The old building, of course, was not fireproof. Had fireproof doors been provided in different sections of the old build-

ing there might not have been such destruction of property. However, no provision has been made for -such a thing as the hon. gentleman has mentioned.


Jacques Bureau: What about safeguards against smoke? Smoke would smother anybody running through these halls.


Mr. COPP:: Is there any provision in this vote for supplying furniture for the new building?


John Dowsley Reid: Furniture is included in the total cost of the construction of the building. We have ordered some and intend ordering more. The cost will come out of this vote for $2,000,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: A part of this vote may be used for the purchase of furniture for the building?	,


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who has charge of the purchase of the furniture?


John Dowsley Reid: That is done through
the committee which is supervising the work of construction. The officials of the Public Works Department call for tenders in the ordinary way and submit those tenders to the committee appointed for the purpose of awarding contracts and looking after the construction of the building.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Are tenders for furniture required in the different departments of this building now being called for?


John Dowsley Reid: No tenders have as yet been called for- I am informed that the nature of the permanent furniture to be placed in the building has not yet been decided. The committee is still considering the question before it calls for tenders.


Edmond Proulx: Has the Public Works
Department, or the Supervising Committee, any say in the fixing of the wages paid to the employees by the contractors?


John Dowsley Reid: The Labour Department generally decides questions of that kind. In the event of a dispute the Labour Department is called in and whatever they say is a fair wage to be paid is paid by the contractors.


Edmond Proulx: Is all the work being done by the one contractor? For instance, have Lyall and Sons provided the heating apparatus and plumbing as well as the other work?
911	.


John Dowsley Reid: The Lyall Company are the contractors for everything in connection with the building.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the committee to which the minister referred really exist? At one time it did but is it still in existence? If so I do not think it meets very often. I am not complaining, because I think this expenditure is one for which the Government must take the responsibility. The minister states that tenders are being called for the furniture by the committee, whereas the committee in my opinion meets very seldom. Practically it is not a working committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not agree with the hon. member. The Deputy Minister of Public Works tells me that there have been fifty-seven meetings of the committee and in nearly every case those meetings have been fairly well attended.


Mr. MARCIL:: Who compose the committee?


John Dowsley Reid: At the present time, Mr. Ballantyne, Mr. Calder, Sir James Loug-heed, Senator Robertson, Senator Watson and myself-six.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: There are very few
Liberals on it.


William Stevens Fielding: Senator Watson seems to be in excellent company; it is a case of five to one. During the recess I do not imagine the committee is able to meet frequently. .When Parliament is in session it can of course meet more regularly, four or five of these gentlemen being members of the Government. I am not complaining of the infrequent meetings-I think this is an expenditure for which the Government must be responsible-but I do not regard this a working committee out of session.


John Dowsley Reid: I must take issue with the hon. gentleman and tell him that Senator Watson comes all the way from Manitoba to Ottawa to attend the meetings of the committee.


Jacques Bureau: That is a long way
to come.	,


John Dowsley Reid: When the Hon. Mr. Pugsley was a member of the committee he also came from St. John to attend meetings of the committee. Those meetings have all been well attended and all its members have taken a deep interest in everything connected with the construction of the building. I can assure the hon. member that the committee are called together quite

often and always consider these tenders as they are submitted.


William Stevens Fielding: The committee at present is composed of five ministers and Senator Watson; is that correct?


John Dowsley Reid: That is so.


William Stevens Fielding: That is rather lopsided.


John Dowsley Reid: We would be very glad to re-organize it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not complain.


Charles Marcil: Has anything been settled about the tower yet?


John Dowsley Reid: We had a meeting of
the committee a few days' ago. A working model is being prepared, but nothing has been finally decided as yet.


Mr. PEOULX:: Has the minister considered the question of installing chimes in the tower?	.


John Dowsley Reid: Not yet,


Mr. TOBIN:: Has the committee yet considered tenders for silverware and cutlery for the restaurant?


John Dowsley Reid: The matter was before the committee recently. Two tenders were received,-one from Mappin & Webb, and the other from Cassidy & Sons.


Edmund William Tobin: Which tender was accepted?


John Dowsley Reid: Cassidy's tender was
the lower, and we accepted it, as in all cases.


Mr.   BTJEEAU@: As in all cases?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the lowest tender is usually accepted.


Mr. P. McGIBBON:: Is the present furniture of this Chamber to be considered as permanent, or is any particular committee paying attention to the colour scheme of the decoration?


John Dowsley Reid: The desks now installed, with the exception of the front row, are supposed to be permanent, but the chairs are only temporary.


Charles Marcil: How many architects are now connected with the enterprise?


John Dowsley Reid: Two; Mr. PeaTson and Mr. Marchand,-the same two who originally took the contract.


Mr. CANNON:: Will the minister tell us when may we expect carpets in our offices?


The CHAIEMAN:: Order. Mr. McCrea
has the floor.	j,


Mr.   M@: This vote of $2,000,000 I
presume will have to be granted, because the building must be completed, but I would like to ask the minister or the committee in charge of this worji whether it would not be possible to speed it up a little? During the past couple of months I have had opportunities of occasionally watching what was going on, and I think it would be wise for those in charge tb see that at least we get a little work done right here under the eyes of the country's representatives, for the money we are paying. If the committee have not already done so, I would advise them to look around where Lyall and other contractors are doing work on a contract rather than a percentage basis and see if there is not a little difference in the speed with which operations are conducted under contract. One need not be very observant to notice the sluggish movements of the men on this job-in fact, it is really amusing to see how they proceed with their work. For instance, I saw one big husky man the other day going through the performance of scrubbing floors. The charwoman gets on her knees and does the same work expeditiously and efficiently. This man was sitting down at the job, and although I do not know what rate of pay he was receiving, it struck me as a rather expensive way of doing that class of work, and if all the other work is being conducted along the same lines I think it would be well for the committee to take steps to speed up the men in charge.


Sir GEOEGE FOSTEE:: Might it not be possible that the man my hon. friend refers to is lame and cannot use his legs?


Mr. McCEEA:: He had not any appearance of being lame. I think he was more lazy than lame.


John Dowsley Reid: The question has been before the committee several times, and we are doing everything we can to speed up the work and get it completed before next session.


Michael Clark: If the man my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) refers to was a returned soldier with a lame leg, I would be the last man to interfere with him, as I am sure my hon. friend would be. He may look all right, but after being at the front he may have legs which are of little avail to him notwithstanding his husky appearance. I think my hon. friend should find out whether the man he is complaining about is not a returned soldier with a wooden leg.

,Mr. DENIS: The point which has just been raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke gives us an inkling of the wrong principle upon which the contract for this building was let. We have been told that the contractors receive a certain percentage on $5,000,000. Over and above the $5,000,000 mark I would ask the minister what interest have the contractors in reducing the expense? Are the contractors, or is 'Re minister, or the committee, or any one else in this House or in the country interested in seeing that the money of the people is properly expended? If the cost runs to $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 or $15,000,000, what would it matter to the contractors? They do not care, they are here on the job, and, if the representations made by the member for Sherbrooke are correct, they let the men work just as they please. I think this is a very pertinent question for the attention of the minister: whether any one is interested in seeing that this work is being conducted efficiently and in a way that every dollar spent will bring to the country a dollar's worth of work.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Jacques Bureau: No.
%


Mr. DENIS:: My question was qurte plain.


John Dowsley Reid: I was just speaking to the deputy minister.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My point is this, briefly: Is anybody interested in seeing that this money is being properly expended? It is clear that the contractors have no interest in reducing the expenditure. When a man contracts to do a piece of work he is interested in seeing that the money is properly expended because he is paying out that money. Who is paying the money in this particular case? The managers of the contractors are looking after the work, but no one is interested in seeing that the work is properly done and the money not spent improvidently.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend does not understand the situation or he would not make that statement. In the first place, we have two first-class architects in charge of this work-Mr. Pearson and Mr. Mar-chand.


Jacques Bureau: How are they paid?


John Dowsley Reid: By commission.


Charles Marcil: Are they interested in reducing the cost of the work?


Mr. J. D. REED:: Men of their reputation I should think would be interested in seeing that the cost was kept down to the minimum. But in addition to that, when this work was started we took Mr. Ewart, the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department-


Mr FIELDING:: The Chief Architect.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.-and in my opinion he is one of the most reliable men ever employed in the Civil Service. We placed him here as representing the Government, and he has been on this work exclusively since the contract was given. We have in addition three first class inspectors who are around the building all the time seeing that the work is properly done.


Lucien Cannon: What are their names?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Keefer and Mr. Clancy. These men see that the work is properly done and pressed to completion as fast as possible. They report to the deputy minister. Mr. Ewart also appears before the Committee at intervals and informs them how the work is progressing. He told us at a meeting of the Committee the other day that the work was not progressing as fast as he would like, and we are taking measures accordingly.


Jacques Bureau: The minister stated just now that the cost of the building would be $10,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Roughly.


Jacques Bureau: And $7,000,000 has been expended. The first estimate was for $5,000,000. Alight I ask on what that estimate was based? The increase seems rather strange, because the estimate was made during the war and therefore the difference between pre-war and after-the-war prices can hardly be alleged as the reason.


John Dowsley Reid: The original estimate ol $5,000,000 was made by Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lyall. Since that estimate was made the increased cost of material and labour accounts for a further $2,000,000 at least.


Jacques Bureau: That still leaves $3,000,000 to be accounted for. According to the minister, the original estimate of $5,000,000 has been increased by $2,000,000 because of the increased cost of material and labour, and we are now told that the ultimate cost will be $10,000,000. That still leaves $3,000,000 to play upon.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Jacques Bureau: It is very hard for us to understand this increase, too.


Mr. VERVILLE:: Does this vote include the supplying of heat to the Western Block, the Post Office, the Eastern Block, and the Langevin Block?


John Dowsley Reid: This vote includes the power-house and the tunnelling.


Charles Marcil: Is the cost of that charged to the Parliament Building?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Alphonse Verville: I think we should know how much the Parliament Building itself has cost outside of this other work. I have been over this tunnelling and heating plant, and I know it is very expensive work, because that happens to be my trade. I do not think the cost should he included in the Parliament Building costs. There is an awful draft playing around the seats to the left of the Speaker's chair. I wish the minister would bring this to the attention of the architects, because at present the seats cannot be occupied when the door is open.


John Dowsley Reid: I will bring that matter to their attention.


Alphonse Verville: 
John Dowsley Reid: I shall be very glad to get the figures my hon. friend desires. I am informed by the deputy minister that the power-house and the main tunnel will cost in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars. That is charged to this building although the plant heats the other buildings as well.


Jacques Bureau: The main tunnel is
charged to this building?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. To connect the Eastern Block, the Langevin Block, the Western Block, and the Supreme Court, has cost about $35,000.


Jacques Bureau: Is the Hunter Block connected to this system?


John Dowsley Reid: No. The deputy minister informs me that the $35,000 is not all charged to the Parliament Building, but I will give the exact figures later.


Ernest Lapointe: We have already voted $2,000,000 for the completion of this building, and those are only two of the many millions which are in the Estimates for the Department of Public Works. That just shows the importance of having at the head of the department a man who can devote his whole time to its business. My hon. friend is very active, but he has his own department to supervise.


Jacques Bureau: And the game to play.


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is only fair that the country should have the benefit of a full-fledged Minister of Public Works.


John Dowsley Reid: Will you take the job?


Ernest Lapointe: Not in this Government.


Jacques Bureau: That might be the only way for this Government to get a minister re-elected.


Mr. GOULD:: It may be due to my lack of progressiveness that I find my office and those of several others on the same floor absolutely unprepared for living in when -we come here. Some furniture is required, and although I have repeatedly asked for some provision to be made, even temporarily, in the way of a filing cabinet and a hatraek for my hat and coat, I have been .unable to procure those very necessary articles of furniture. I have been informed that elaborate desks and filing cabinets will . eventually be provided, and in the meantime we shall manage with desks without locks and so forth. But some temporary arrangements might be made in the offices of new members who have not any of these

modern conveniences, or, one might say, any conveniences at all, so that we could carry on in the meantime. I should like something in which to file away some of the volumes of stuff I am gathering around in corners on the floor, and something on which to hang my hat and coat, instead of having to set them down on the couch.


John Dowsley Reid: The complaint made by the hon. member (Mr. Verville) about the draught, is the first complaint of that nature we have had and I will draw the attention of the architect to the matter..
If my hon. friend (Mr. Gould) thinks any furniture or anything else is required in his room to make it comfortable for carrying on his work, all he has to do is to make a requisition on the Serjeant-at-Arms who will see that the matter is attended to at once. If that requisition is not carried out, if the hon. member will drop me a line, I will see that the matter is attended to immediately.
Mr. MAHARiG:	Is that statement supposed to have general application?


John Dowsley Reid: The Serjeant-at-Arms has charge of the building, and if anything is necessary, he makes the application. If he thinks a requisition is unreasonable, he may submit it to the Department of Public Works for approval.


Michael Clark: I suppose due regard
will be had to what are the modest demands of the members of the Farmers' Party.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: I have adopted that procedure on three or four occasions, and I am sure the Serjeant-at-Arms has done his best on behalf of the members who are on that floor; but apparently stocks are not available, and I should like to know what procedure is being taken to get them.


John Dowsley Reid: I will make inquiries of the Serjeant-at-Arms as to what requisitions he has that have not been filled, and we shall try to have them filled at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. EULER:: Five or six months ago
tenders were called for the supplying of desks and other furniture of rooms throughout the building; tenders were put in, and I think contracts were practically decided upon when some objection was found with the nature of the desks, it being considered that they were of too expensive a quality and so on. The matter was supposed to come before the Government, and I should like to know what has been done with regard
to it and what disposition has been made of the tenders. Is there any likelihood of contracts being awarded, or is the matter to be left open for another five or six months?


John Dowsley Reid: The chief architect prepared designs for desks and tenders were called. The cost of the desks amounted to $180 each, but the committee thought they were too expensive and that another design should be made that would, perhaps, answer the purpose and at the same time be more economical. We have asked the chief architect to submit new designs, but up to the present time he has not had time to prepare them. We had the matter up at the last committee meeting, and we expect to have the designs within a short time, when we shall be ready to call for tenders.


William Daum Euler: Have the original tenderers been informed that their tenders are not to be considered further?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and their checks have been returned.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to call the minister's attention to the following fact. When we address the House in English, we have a very convenient and comfortable room where we can go and look at the stenographer's notes and correct whatever errors and mistakes may have slipped in; but on the other hand, if we speak in French and we wish to correct our speeches, the French stenographers are in a room with everybody else, with about twenty-five typewriters working, so that it is absolutely impossible for one to do any work. I understand that, as the original plans for the disposition of rooms stood, the French stenographers were given a separate room where the 5 p.m. French members could have gone to do their work. But for some reason or another instructions were given by somebody whose name I do not know; two gentlemen were put into that separate room, and the French stenographers were put into that large room I mentioned with about twenty-five or thirty other people. This is a great inconvenience, and it surely should be sufficient to draw the attention of the minister to the fact to obtain an immediate remedy.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the rooms of this building are all under the direction of the Speaker and not of the Minister of Public Works. I will draw the Speaker's attention to the statement made by the hon. member, but from what I can understand the room that is intended for

the French stenographers is under construction and not yet completed.


Lucien Cannon: They had one and it was taken away from them.


John Dowsley Reid: All I can say is that I will draw the attention of the Speaker to the matter and see that it is remedied.


Jacques Bureau: I trust the minister will use his influence to remedy it.


Lucien Cannon: Is it the intention of this joint committee to spend any of this $2,000,000 in improving the library?


John Dowsley Reid: That matter has not as yet come before the committee which has so far been dealing with the main building. If any improvement or other work is necessary in connection with the library, it will have to be done, and it would be included in any moneys expended in connection with the construction of this building.


Lucien Cannon: If the minister goes to
the library-and I am sure he goes there often-he will notice that books are stacked in the shelves four and five layers deep so that it is absolutely impossible to find any books, and papers are stored away in files so that we cannot find what we want; in fact, most of the books are in the cellars. It is very important that this committee should look after that part of the building and see that proper accommodation is given so that the books will be displayed in such a way that the members can find the books they require.


John Dowsley Reid: I will look into the
matter.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Does the architect receive a commission on the furnishings as well as on the construction of the building?


John Dowsley Reid: No arrangement was made with the architects with reference to the furniture, but I think they are entitled to a commission on that as well as on the building. They are the ones who are designing the furniture, calling for tenders and so on.


William Costello Kennedy: What is the rate of commission?


John Dowsley Reid: Five and one-half per cent,


William Costello Kennedy: Will that be on the
$10,000,000 estimate?


John Dowsley Reid: 
William Costello Kennedy: Is there any arrangement for any commission to be paid after the $5,000,000 has been exceeded?


John Dowsley Reid: 
William Costello Kennedy: Then, the Government do not intend paying any additional fees to the architects over and above an expenditure of $5,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: We have not considered anything other than the contract up to the present time.


William Daum Euler: What authority has this
joint committee of senators and members of the House? Does it merely supervise the construction, or has it power to let contracts, or are all contracts subject to the approval or supervision of the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: The committee got its authority from a resolution passed by the House authorizing the appointment of this committee, and it, not the Department of Public Works, has power to award contracts and to carry on the work.


William Daum Euler: ,Are these contracts not subject to revision by the Government itself? II ask this question because of the contract to which I referred a little while ago in connection with tenders for desks.
I think the committee had approved of what the architect had designed and had practically awarded the contract; but the Government stepped in, I understand, and nullified the whole thing. Just how much power has this committee? Or is everything subject to revision by the Government afterwards?
'Mr. J. D. RETD: The architects submitted plans for the furniture and the committee approved of them and called for tenders. But the tenders amounted to so much more than the sum which the committee thought we should pay for desks that it was decided not to accept them. It was not the Government but the committee that refhsed to accept the tenders.
;Mr. EULER: Had the committee the actual power to do so?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the committee has power to accept tenders and award contracts. Minutes are made of each meeting,

showing the tenders that have been received, and unless the committee passes on a contract it is not awarded.


William Costello Kennedy: How often does the committee meet?


John Dowsley Reid: There have been sixty-seven meetings since the building operations commenced. [I cannot say from memory how often we meet each year, but we meet frequently.


Mr. JACOBS:: Who compose the committee?


John Dowsley Reid: I gave that information a few moments ago.


Jean-Joseph Denis: A short while ago the minister gave an answer that seems to me to be evasive, and II should like to get some definite information from him. The question was asked as to whether the architects were receiving five and a half per cent up to five million dollars, or five and a half per cent on the whole amount expended, and the minister said: "As we understand it, it was five and a half per cent up to five millions." The minister must surely be in possession of sufficient knowledge to give a more precise and satisfactory statement than this.
Mr. J.*D. REID: We made a contract with Lyall whereby they were to receive five and a half per cent up to five million dollars.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am speaking of the architects.


John Dowsley Reid: The agreement with
them was that we should pay five and a half per cent up to five million dollars. The work has cost a great deal more. Mr. Pearson thinks he is underpaid, and there the matter stands; but there is no question legally but that all we have to pay is five and a half per cent up to five million dollars.
Mr. VERVTLIlEi:	How much has been
paid to Mr. Pearson and Mr. Marchand? What will they receive on the furniture?
, Mr. REID: The two architects made an agreement limiting the amount of expenditure at the time to five million dollars.


Jacques Bureau: That was the cost of the building at the time.


John Dowsley Reid: That was what they estimated would be the cost of the building. The matter of the furniture was not discussed at the time, but as I have stated,
they will be entitled to something on that as well. Mr. Pearson claims that he will not be able to come out square on the agreement.


Alphonse Verville: Do they receive anything for the plans?


John Dowsley Reid: No; it is included in the commission they receive.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Was a tender called for at the outset for the entire building?


John Dowsley Reid: No.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY:	What portion of
work has been given to (Lyall?


John Dowsley Reid: The whole work; that is, on a percentage basis,
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: That is probably ihp reason why this building has cost so much, and why its erection has been so protracted. Every practical builder knows that this method is the longest way in construction. Every day that this building remains unfinished means a certain cost to the public, and I think that the committee henceforth should change its method.


William Daum Euler: Are the furnishings included in the estimate of ten million dollars, or does this sum represent the building alone?


John Dowsley Reid: The estimate of ten million dollars includes the building and the necessary furniture.


William Daum Euler: What proportion of this amount will represent expenditures on furnishings?
Mr, J. D. RETD: Half a million, I understand.


Jacques Bureau: I suppose the ten millions include the cost of the tower.


John Dowsley Reid: Everything.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In connection with the item for architects' commission, >1 put on the Order Paper a few days ago a question in reply to which I received the information that up to the 28th day of April, 1919, the architects had been paid $255,354.24. Now, apparently, from what the minister tells us, after that payment on the 28th of April, 1919, up to the present time, a period of nearly one year, no payment has been made to the architects on account of the work done during that time. As I understand, they have been employed continuously during the whole year. It seems to me that this committee, to whom is entrusted the

supervision of the building and the expending of this large amount of ten million dollars, have not been careful in their duties, or they would have had some definite arrangement with the architects since the 28th of April, 1919. My hon. friend says that Mr. Pearson alleges that he has not been adequately paid, and makes a claim upon the committee for a further sum. If it was necessary at the beginning of the construction of this building that the committee should have a clear understanding of the contract under which the architect was to receive 51 per cent on an expenditure of $5,000,000, it is certainly necessary that we should have a clear understanding of what we are proposing to pay the architect for the completion of the building and the purchase of furniture which is to be entrusted to him. We are asked to vote $2,000,000 for the completion of the building.
Mr. MARlCIL: Towards the completion of the building?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes, towards the completion of the building. The minister has control of the Department of Public Works which has the supervision and control of this building it is the duty of the minister and the Government to come before the House and definitely and conclusively tell us how much is to be paid the architect and the other officials who are carrying on this work.


John Dowsley Reid: I thought the hon. gentleman had that information in the answer to the question as to the amount which has been paid to the architects. The amount is $255,000 and $275,000 would be the total.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There will be $19,000 more to pay?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The architects
are complaining that the amount they agreed to is not ^sufficient, and they are asking for more. There has been no action taken and we are still adhering to the original agreement with the architects.


Alphonse Verville: Do I understand that
.both architects are making the same complaint?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Pearson was the
one who made the complaint, but the other architect was present at the time. As he did not say anything, I take it for granted that he is of the same opinion as Mr. Pearson, because under the arrangement each gets a certain amount of the commission.


Alphonse Verville: As I understand the
amount we are now voting is towards the

completion of the building. The minister will not take it upon himself to say it will complete the whole building?


John Dowsley Reid: Not the $2,000,000. I said that it is estimated that we would require $10,000,000.


Alphonse Verville: This will make $10,-
000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: No, $9,000,000.


Alphonse Verville: And my hon. friend believes that to complete the Whole building it will require $10,000,000?


John Dowsley Reid: I can only answer the hon. gentleman by giving the information that is given to me that for this amount we can complete the building.


Alphonse Verville: I do not believe you
can.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I see by the answer
given to my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) that $214,729 has been paid to Mr. J. A. Pearson and $40,624.52 to Mr. Mar-chand. There is a big difference between these two amounts. Is there one senior and one junior architect or are they both on the same level? What is the basis of the fees they receive? Is there an agreement between them by which one will get more than the other?


John Dowsley Reid: We had Mr. Marchand and Mr. Pearson together when we made the original agreement with them on the 5} per cent basis. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Marchand agreed between themselves as to the division of the 51 per cent. Mr. Pearson, as I understand, assumed all the expenses in connection with the architects' work. There are large expenses. Mr. Marchand was to receive his portion without paying any part of the expenses.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are these expenses?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Pearson has quite a staff of architects that he has to pay out of this 51 per cent. I do not want the committee to think that these architects get 51 per cent for their own personal services, and that they have to pay nothing out of that. Mr. Marchand would receive $40,000 for his own personal services and Mr. Pearson would receive the balance but he must pay out of the balance the expenses of his own architects and draftsmen and he tells me that he cannot afford to take the 51 per cent and do that. That is the question, but we have not agreed to any departure from the contract.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Pearson has a complete staff, I understand?


John Dowsley Reid: So I understand.


Lucien Cannon: How is it that the minister adds to that complete staff the different gentlemen whose names he gave us some time ago? There is the chief architect of the Department of Public Works. Why add the chief architect of the Department of Public Works if Mr. Pearson has already a complete staff?


John Dowsley Reid: We thought that
as a further protection we should put on our owm architect, Mr. Ewart, and three other gentlemen under him to assist in seeing that the work was properly carried out and to audit the accounts. It is a protection all round. I think we were well advised to have all the protection we possibly could get and to put on the very best men we have.


Lucien Cannon: Do these gentlemen from the Department of Public Works check up Mr. Pearson and his staff and are they getting the ordinary salaries they were drawing as employees of the Department of Public Works or do they get extra pay for the work they are doing on the Parliament Buildings?


John Dowsley Reid: They just get their ordinary pay as employees of the Department of Public Works and are getting no extra pay.


William Stevens Fielding: There is an unfortunate condition in this contract. Practically speaking, under the terms of the contract, we are obliged to pay out the whole commission of the architects while the work is yet unfinished. I took occasion to call attention to this at a previous session. If anything were to happen to these gentlemen and the work would be still unfinished they would have the money. It is an extraordinary contract to make. If it was made by the Government it is reprehensible and if it was made by a committee of both Houses it is so much the worse.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: The minister stated
that a further claim would be made by the architect for a payment of more than 5i per cent on an expenditure of $5,000,000.1 would like to ask the minister whether, if such a claim is put in by the architect, it will be considered by the committee or by the Government.


John Dowsley Reid: I can only say offhand that in my opinion if there was to be any change at all it would be the committee that
would have the power to decide whether anything more was to be paid than the 5h per cent that was arranged with the architects. I think the resolution gives them that power.


William Stevens Fielding: The committee would
have power to make that change without coming to Parliament?


John Dowsley Reid: I am only giving my
own opinion. If the Justice Department would say that the committee had not the power in accordance with the resolution we would have to come to Parliament.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before this item passes I would like to voice a protest which I hive often made privately against the wicked extravagance which is shown in nearly all parts of this building. We have marble galore. We are walking on marble; the door jambs are marble; and it looks as if the architects had been trying to see how much of the people's money they could spend instead of, at a time when rigid economy is necessary, seeing how much of the people's money they could save. Well,
I suppose there is no use in crying over spilled milk, or uttering Jeremiah's lamentations over a too great expenditure for marble, but we can economize upon the furniture which has not yet been bought. The minister tells us that the desks for the private members are to cost $180 apiece.
I wish to protest against such wicked extravagance when the Government is in the hole that it is and cannot get the necessary money to carry on the people's business.


John Dowsley Reid: That was the decision of the committee; we did not buy the desks.
, Mr. McMASTER: In that case do not ask them to buy any more desks; get a catalogue of ordinary business desks and make a selection from it. If the minister is too busy with his railways and canals, let him get the deputy minister to look after the matter and tell him carefully not to pick out waste paper baskets at $40 each. Let him look at moderate-priced desks that are good enough for anybody, and see if we cannot get something of that sort. I imagine at would be a crime to spend anything like $180 for desks in private members' rooms. The whole thing is distasteful to me; it is extravagance at a time when members of Parliament should be setting an example of economy to the people of this country.


Francis N. McCrea: They are preaching but not practising economy.

Mr. MeMASTER: My hon. friend from Sherbrooke says that 'hon. gentlemen opposite are preaching but not setting an example of economy. I do not know; we have not heard any great preaching of economy any more than we have seen examples of it. Let us at least see to it-and in this I believe there are some members opposite who agree with me-that we should not attempt to* have specially designed desks put in our private rooms. Any kind of desk that would suit a reasonable professional man's use should be placed in the private room for members. Speaking for myself, I do not want anything better. I would think that a desk costing one-half of $180 would, if anything, be on the expensive side. I made these remarks in the hope that no such folly will be perpetrated as the purchase of desks at the price of $180 each.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: It appears to me that the criticism of my hon. friend is a little extreme. He complains of being compelled to walk on too much marble. Doubtless he is familiar with the teaching in Scripture that says "The wicked stand in slippery places."
Mr. McMA'STER: That is why I am thinking of you.


William Foster Cockshutt: If the hon. gentleman goes down I suppose the righteous will have fallen on marble places. Whether or not there is too much marble, I think we must all admire the stone which has been used; it appears to me to be in excellent taste. I understand it comes .from the province of Manitoba and I think it is a credit to the province and to the country. Then, too, there is nothing glaring in this Chamber; I think every one must admit it is very chaste and beautiful. The desks and other furnishings are all that we could expect in the way of cleanliness, comfort and everything of that kind, and the wood is of very fine quality. I do not want to be a sponsor for extravagance, but I have had a little experience in building myself and I do not think that the point taken by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is exactly in line with what obtains in every business transaction with architects. My experience has been, and I have built quite a number of buildings under architects, that where the proprietor agrees to vary the original contract to any extent for a few alterations or improvements-or extras, as they are generally called-he becomes responsible for the same commission as he agreed to pay on the
	.
original structure. Now, I think, that is good architectural law and is the case as far as my experience goes: That where you vary from the original contract and become a party to it-without there being anything in the contract, it does not matter whether it is there or not-if will bear upon its face the same commission that was agreed to be paid for the original building.


Jacques Bureau: Do you lay that down as a principle of law?


William Foster Cockshutt: I lay that down as an ordinary business proposition. It has always been the rule in respect to every building that I have ever had the privilege in my lifetime of erecting under an architect.
I do not think that the commission is large. I am surprised at the half per cent -at least I understood five per cent is the limit that was fixed by law. But perhaps the law has been varied to suit the times. Five per cent has always been in my experience the limit that architects were allowed to charge on buildings. The furniture does not necessarily go with the building; if that were decided on, I do not think that it was necessary to be done. In my experience the providing of the furniture is a separate thing, but if you wish to add it to the original arrangement made with the architect you are at liberty to do so. It seems to me, however, that should only be done with the consent of the Building Committee.
Taking things altogether I do not believe that the building has cost a very great deal more than was originally expected. We know that $5,000,000 was the preliminary vote; but anybody who has had any experience in putting up buildings, even private individuals, will know that house construction, especially in these days, runs to fully two prices, and in some cases to three prices, over what it did five, six or seven years ago. That is my experience and I think I live in a city where we have contractors and men who are as faithful and reasonable as they are in other cities. But I say that under existing conditions we cannot expect that buildings can be erected for the sum they formerly could. I should say, to look at it, that this building would cost from seven to eight millions of dollars. I would make an estimate of that kind myself, looking at the extent of the structure and the quality of the material and everything else that has gone into it. It may be that we are going to pay a little too much. I fancy this vote of

$2,000,000 will not finally settle the bill although I hope it will.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says not.


William Foster Cockshutt: My experience in extras and such things has led me to suppose that after you have paid for all the extras, and the extra extras, there is still something on top of that. I fear there may be something of that nature in this instance but there is no doubt that. this committee have done excellent work. Even if some members of this committee have dropped off I do not believe the Government are to blame for that. In the committee's original form I think there were more Liberal members than there are today. For some reason that I do not know- whether there was anything the matter I am not aware-some of those Liberal members withdrew. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) I think was one of the original committee-I never heard why he dropped* off-and I think there were one or two other Liberals on that committee. I believe the intention was to have a fair committee in the first place and I think, appointed in the way they were, they did constitute a fair committee. When all is said and done we must give them this credit: I do not believe there has been any rake-off or commission so far. If the committee have had fifty-seven meetings it shows they have been attending to the work pretty well. With such an excellent building as we have I trust it will be completed without any scandal. I hope that will toe the case. It would be a very lamentable reflection on the Capital of Canada if any doubt should be entertained as to whether all the money that was voted went into the building. Speaking personally, I have no doubt that up to the present time all the money voted has gone there, but I would advise the committee that no more extras should be taken on-that a definite understanding in that regard should at once be reached with the architects. That has always been my policy. When it came to having any extras or making any change that involved additional expenditure, my first question to the architect was to know how the arrangement stood in that regard. If that is done I do not see any reason why this building should not be properly completed and be a credit to the architects, to the builders, and more especially to the committee that have in a very disinterested way spent a very great deal of time and tried to minister to our comfort in a way, perhaps, even far better,
greater, and grander than we had reason to expect or to hope for.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid my hon. friend from Brantford has misapprehended the point of my criticism. I did not raise any question as to the reasonableness of the commission or as to the amount to which it should apply. I share with my brother members the pride we all feel in the magnificence of this building, and I am quite prepared to defend a very generous and liberal expenditure in order that it may be made a building of which* every Canadian shall be proud.
I have no desire to see the architects ungenerously dealt with; that was not my intention at all. What I point out is, that under the terms of the contract we are put in the position that the architects have received all their commission-in fact, they received it long ago-and they are from this time foiward, to use a common phrase, " working for nothing and finding themselves." My criticism is that whatever percentage was coming to the architects should have been distributed over the whole period of construction, but as it turned out they have got five per cent on the $5,000,000 *-I presume they have got it by this time -whether they are entitled to any more or not, although according to the statement of the hon. minister that is all they are entitled to. I am not making any point against the architects; rather I am calling attention to the folly of the arrangement under which the committee or the Government paid out the whole of the commission before the completion of the contract. If Mr. Pearson had been called away to his eternal home as a reward for this magnificent work, we would have had to engage another architect and pay him another five per cent instead of distributing the commission over the whole period of construction.


John Dowsley Reid: It is all very well for the hon. member to say that, but he knows from the discussions which have taken place in this House that the architects and every one else believed that this work could be completed within three years. Mr. Pearson estimated what he would have to pay out to his staff during those three years, and unless he had been paid his commission he could not have met that cost. If we had carried out the policy that the hon. member has just recommended, then Mr. Pearson would have had to stop long ago because he would not have been able to carry on his work for lack of the money

necessary to pay his staff. That is the reason we had to do it. For a period of one year Mr. Pearson had not received a dollar until a few days ago when we paid him $10,000, and we still owe him $10,000 under the original contract. In addition to that commission, in my opinion he should be entitled to a commission on the furniture. The only difference between my hon. friend and myself is that he thinks we should have distributed payment of this commission over the period of construction, in which,event Mr. Pearson could not have carried on the work. We felt wo should pay him his commission so that he might be able to pay his current expenses. There is another point to be considered. My hon. friend knows, as I explained it a few minutes ago, that at the time this contract was let no one expected the war would last for three years-not even my hon. friend ever entertained that expectation, neither did the contractors-and as a result of the delays that have taken place injustice has been done to Mr. Pearson. I do not think it is fair to criticise him as my hon. friend does.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not criticising Mr. Pearson at all. I have not offered the slightest reflection upon Mr. Pearson. I think he has given us a magnificent monument that he, and his family after him, may well be proud of. If I have any criticism toi offer it is of the Government which permitted a contract to be entered into under which they paid out the whole commission years before the work was done. That is a simple statement of the position, and there is no getting away from it. My hon. friend says that if we had not done that Mr. Pearson could not have gone on. Well, according to that statement, Mr. Pearson must stop now. He has got all the money that is due him, and-according to my hon. friend- unless he gets more he cannot pay his staff, and therefore cannot continue his work, and we are going to be left at his mercy. I do not find fault with Mr. Pearson; on the contrary, I think he has given us a magnificent structure, and I would like him to be generously dealt with; but I think it was a clumsy, stupid contract under which he was to be paid all the commission years before the work was done.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have to call attention to one little defect in this magnificent building. There is now on the table in front of the Clerk a nice little pyramid, which I suppose was designed by the architect to harmonize with the furniture of the

House. To my great surprise, however, I find that the names of the months and days are in English.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: At the opening of this session the Acting Prime Minister stated he was proud of the French language, and he gave us a very eloquent address in French, which every one of us enjoyed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would like to see the Government follow that excellent example in matters which may not be of any importance in the estimation of hon. members on the other side of the House, but which we on this side consider of some importance. Therefore I would ask the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works to kindly see if it be feasible to have the names of the months and days appear in French on this pyramid, and so correct this apparent oversight.


George Green Foster: It would make my hon. friend's protest a grea/t deal stronger if we could get on with an item of the Estimates once in a while.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. minister in answer to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) said a minute ago that this work had lasted much longer than w.as expected at the time the contract was made. I think one of 'the reasons for the delay in completion is the numerous changes that have taken place in the Department of Public Works. For the information of the committee would (the minister tell us how many different ministers have had charge of that department since construction on this building started?


Jacques Bureau: Impossible.


John Dowsley Reid: I want to give credit to the deputy minister and to his staff for the great work they have done in connection with this building.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


John Dowsley Reid: No men have worked harder and accomplished more than the deputy minister and Mr. Ewart in their efforts to get this work pressed to completion. We have had changes in the department, but no delay has resulted on that account.


Lucien Cannon: 
George Green Foster: Don't tell us his name.


Jacques Bureau: Could the Acting Prime Minister give me the names of the ministers and acting ministers of the Department of Public Works since we started the construction or restoration of this building?


George Green Foster: Surely my hon. friend is old enough to be serious when there is a $2,000,000 piece of business before the House. What does it matter who were the ministers and acting ministers of the department? They are only temporary, they are in and out; it is the permanent officials who carry on. My hon. friend knows they did so when he was a minister of the Crown, and he knows they still do it. So long as we have good deputy ministers the work goes on without interruption. My hon. friend has a very interesting problem before him-


Jacques Bureau: Certainly.


George Green Foster: -and it will interest him a while longer if he will let it remain on Hansard.


Jacques Bureau: I have great admiration for the wonderful memory of the Acting Prime Minister, but I think it would be too great a test even for his memory to give the names of all the ministers who have been through the Department of Public Works since we started the restoration of this building. A few minutes ago the Minister of Public Works told us the desks were going to remain as they are except thotse in the front row. Is it the intention to have a special type of desk designed for the front row, or to take the present desks away?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand the new desks will be similar to the present desks, with 'the exception that the front part will extend down to. the floor.


Jacques Bureau: Another remark I wish to make. I saw in the press some time ago that as the country wanted to show its admiration for the great men who have been in this Parliament from time to time their pictures were to be engraved in marble and granite and placed in various positions throughout this building. Since I have been here I have made a point of walking around the halls and lobbies to discover in the pieces of art that I have found at the tops of columns and in o their places to try to find some resemblance between those graven images and our great men of the past and the present. I have even made an effort to find a resemblance to my hon.
friend the Minister of Public Works where I saw a man with the same affliction as I have-a	scarcity of
hair on the top of his head,- but it was such a poor piece of work and I have so much affection and esteem for my hon. friend that I would not dare make the comparison. Might I inquire if these are part of the glories of this building which have been chanted by the Acting Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition? Do they really mean anything, or are they just there to make us remember that we see things as they really are,-prohibition being in effect in this city of Ottawa -and not as they are not? For my part I am far from being an admirer of men putting their tongues out or pulling faces or showing a broken cheek. I shall not describe the things. My memory is not good enough, and my imagination would not go as far in the worst phase of my life. Are they there to remind us of ancient Olympus or to prophesy the future? Are they threats against our future happiness or reminders of our past wickedness? I should like to know. I am told that they are called gargoyles, and certainly they are just as strange as the word itself. There may be artists who can admire them, but I have not yet reached that stage. As, however, I may have to face these gargoyles for a long time I should like to know something about them so that I may enjoy meeting them.


John Dowsley Reid: Gargoyles are a feature of Gothic architecture. I must really apologize for not having been around the building and looked them over to see if there is one that resembles myself. My hon. friend has been a member of this House for such a long time that if there is not a gargoyle representing him-


Jacques Bureau: I hope not.


John Dowsley Reid: -I shall be happy to draw the omission to the attention of the architect, so that my hon. friend may live in history, in the list of gargoyles. I should like the committee to pass this item, and if any hon. members desire to discuss it further, a discussion could be had when the Estimates for other public buildings are under discussion.


Jacques Bureau: I have no objection, provided you do not put a gargoyle representing me.


John Dowsley Reid: I promise that, if the committee will let the item pass.
Mr. M. (CLARK: There-is this considerable advantage in not having so distinct a

resemblance to the original in gargoyles, that any ambitious member can appropriate his own and if he does not let any one know he has appropriated it, the gargoyle may serve for another member too.


Peter Robert McGibbon: As a Scotchman it might be expected that I would object, but in this case I have no objections to make. I am very proud of this building, which I think reflects credit on the architects from the foundation up. I think great credit is also due to the Hon. Kobert Eogers in whose term of office as Minister of Public Works the reconstruction was begun. He hails from Argenteuil, the same county I have the honour to represent. When we are discussing such a building as this, which is second to none in the British Empire, I do not think we should quibble about small matters. In my judgment there has not been the slightest sign of anything wrong or crooked about the whole arrangements for the construction of the building. My hon. friend (Mr. Keid) has the patience of Job in carrying out his plans. He always sticks to his post and never gets out of humour. I trust there will be no further disagreement on this matter. Any of us who builds a small house in a country place and hires an architect knows that extras always creep in, and we have to pay for them. Extras should be paid for, especially the architect's percentage. The reconstruction of this building has been the work of years. Mr. Marchand, I am sure, has worked hard and long hours, and I would not begrudge anything that is coming to him, not even a pension for the rest of his natural life.


Edmond Proulx: I would suggest that in the central space behind and above the Speaker's chair there be placed a portrait of the Fathers of Confederation, and on either side a portrait of the two premiers longest in office since Confederation, Sir John Macdonald and the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Mr. J. D. KEID f I will take that matter up.


Mr. OOPP:: I shall not ask the minister to allow this item to stand, but I would suggest, and indeed I insist that it is the duty of the Building Committee which has already had its fifty-seventh meeting, to call their fifty-eighth meeting this evening or to-morrow so that after a conference they can come back and tell this committee how much of this $2,000,000 is to be paid to Mr. Pearson and his assistant. It is understood that if the item passes now, we shall be

able to discuss it further when other votes for public buildings are under consideration I want some information regarding the percentage payable to the Lyall Company.


Francis N. McCrea: The commission to the
architect is not a very serious matter,, if he has done his work well. There is a very much more serious matter in connection with the construction of this building, and the whole Civil Service for that matter, and that is that many men are not giving a dollar's worth of labour for a dollar in wages. I think for the credit of this country, for the credit of the Government, and especially of the Minister of Public Works, it should be seen to that some shadow of labour at all events be given for the money paid. There are men around this building and in every department at Ottawa who are not giving service for the money they get. This Government has been preaching thrift and economy. That is a good doctrine to preach, and, I should like to see them practise it in connection with this building, but they are practising' neither thrift nor economy, and both are badly, needed. This country is . burdened with an immense debt which is an easy matter to take care of if the people will get, busy and do something, but the Government should themselves set an example right under the eyes of the representatives of the people by seeing that we get some value for the money spent. At the present time we are not getting value for our money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 59 from the Senate, for the relief of George Henry Shemilt.^Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 60 from the Senate, for the relief of John Bertram Hall.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 61 from the Senate, for the relief of Nell Louise Dennis.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 62 from the Senate, for the relief of Harry Ernest Wright.-Hr, Douglas, (Strathcona).
Bill No. 63 from the Senate, for the relief of Henri Dalphe Parizeau.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 64 from the Senate, for the relief of Gele Karafel.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 65 from the Senate, for the relief of William George Uren.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).

Bill No. 66 from the Senate, for the relief of Meryl Adams.-Mr. Douglas (Strath-cona).

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 54, to confirm the agreement, dated the 8th day of March, 1920, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the said Grand Trunk Railway Company, except the four per cent guaranteed stock.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last in committee, Clause 1 had been considered and adopted. Clause 2 was under consideration, and several proposed amendments thereto had been disposed of. Before we resume consideration of the clause I beg to state that several hon. members have submitted certain questions to the Chairman, inquiring wliether they should be more properly asked upon the second clause of the Bill or upon the schedule thereto. In order that no hon. member may be taken by surprise, I think it well for the Chairman to state immediately that the schedule to the Bill is being considered with the second clause. The schedule to the Bill is an agreement that has already been signed, and it cannot be altered except by an amendment to the Bill itself,-an amendment similar to that proposed by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who adopted the correct procedure. It must be well understood that all questions relating to the agreement will be perfectly in order upon Clause 2, and that when clause 2 has been adopted, it will carry with it the schedule to the Bill.


Jean-Joseph Denis: When we adjourned the other evening I had 'risen to ask the minister if he could tell us what loss or benefit would accrue from the acquisition of the Grand Trunk by the Government. When any one buys property, whether it be a house, a farm, or anything else, the first question that naturally suggests itself to him is; will the bargain be a profitable one? I think I can safely say that we have sufficient evidence already to show us that the acquisition of the Grand Trunk will be a bad bargain. I do not think that any one who is not selfishly interested in this matter will really deny this, and I think the committee is anxious 'to know to what ex-92
tent this bargain will be unprofitable. Will the minister tell us approximately what he thinks will be the yearly deficit on the administration of the Grand Trunk after it has been acquired by the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: It would be impossible for me to tell the hon. member what the results of the operation of the Grand Trunk Railway system are likely to be after the Government has taken over the road. Obviously it must depend on conditions, such as freight rates, crops, and circumstances that may occur from time Ito time. The Grand Trunk railway-that is the main line-has always met its liabilities and paid its dividends, but the hon. member must see that' I could not possibly give any idea as to what will happen after (the road is .acquired by the Government. I did make [DOT]a statement with reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, which, of course, is being operated through a receiver. I gave to the House a statement with regard to the results of the operation of that railway during the last year, land I stated that I saw no possibility of different results during the present year if conditions should continue as they are now. If this Bill passes and we are allowed to place the Grand Trunk Pacific under the operation of the Canadian National Railway system, or, in other words, to bring the two .together .so that they may be operated with the *maximum of economy, then a great saving can be effected. There could be no economy if they continued separate operations.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I quite expected ithe sort of answer which the minister has given, and which shows just how weak is the Government's position in this matter.
The Government is buying a property at a cost of $500,000,000 and they do not know, and cannot know, where they are going to ,land with this proposition except that they are going to pay half a billion of dollars, and it is for that reason that I say, first, that this transaction is a bad one. I have .been expressing myself by saying that we are buying the property in the ordinary way and paying half a billion dollars and no objection has been taken to this method of expressing it. iBut I want to say that in reality when we are buying the common and preferred stocks, we are placing ourselves in the same position as a buyer, we are actually taking the responsibility of a buyer, and consequently we are imposing upon the country a burden of $500,000,000, and we do not, and cannot, know what the



financial result of the administration of the road will be.' The minister has said that to a large extent it would depend upon the freight rates. That is a question upon which the committee and the country should be enlightened now. The Government railways are losing $47,000,000 a year. It costs the people of this country that amount to own the railways. Who is going to pay this deficit?1 Is it the country at large or those who are using the facilities of the railways? If the deficit is going to be made up by the whole people of Canada, freight rates will not be raised and we will simply have to take the necessary money from the treasury to pay it. If the deficit is going to toe paid by those who use the railways, necessarily the rates will have to be increased. I consider this a very important question, and I would ask the minister to make a statement upon the point.


John Dowsley Reid: I made the statement the other day that the loss was $47,000,000 on the railways operated by the Government and by the receiver. I want to say sincerely that in so far as a portion of the loss is concerned, I believe it will be considerable for a number of years and I do not see how the people can get out of paying it,-I refer to the loss on the Grand Trunk Pacific, on which there was a loss of some $14,000,000. Then we have the Transcontinental railway and the Intercolonial. The losses on those roads probably amount to $20,000,000 or $23,000,000. While we have had criticism about the railroads in the past, I am one of those who believe that even if there is a loss it is a good thing to open, up and develop our country. We are getting the benefits of the products coming along these railways and they are of great value to the country.-
When we talk of the future prospects of public ownership, let me say, I do not believe it would be possible to get any private corporation to relieve the Government of the liability for many years; I do not believe that you could get the Canadian Pacific II ail way to take these roads off our hands for the reason that the liability will be there for a great many years. When you deduct that from the Canadian Northern railway it leaves a loss of some $25,000,000 in operation and fixed charges. I did not expect a year ago that we would have that loss, but we did not consider that we would have to increase wages by $19,000,000. No person would have expected that we should have to do that without getting some increase in rates. If it had

not been for that happening, the Canadian National railways would not have been so bad an investment at all.
It is almost impossible for me to estimate the results for the coming year. When on the first of January we were estimating the results and discussing operations for the coming year, I did believe that we had reached the wage peak on our railway system. But hon. members can read the papers as well as I can, and can see that there is a possibility of a further advance. *If we have a further advance the people of this country will have to continue to make good this loss on the railways. I believe all the railways will suffer to such an extent that they will hardly be able to run unless there is an increase in freight rates. The question of increased freight rates is in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I suppose there would be an appeal to the Governor in Council from a decision of the Board of Railway-Commissioners increasing freight rates. I think that the railways will try to show that they cannot get along without an increase in freight rates and they will come before the Board of Railway Commissioners which is the authority which increases or decreases freight rates. Whether this House is of opinion that these rates should not be granted if applied for is another matter. I do not know what action, if any, will be taken by the Government if an appeal should be made from the decision oi the Board of Railway Commissioners, but I did feel the other evening when I made my statement that this is such an important matter and the whole railway situation is in such a serious condition owing to the increase of wages and the cost of supplies that an expression of opinion in the House and from the country might be of great assistance in coming to a conclusion as to the action, if any, that might be taken in case the Board of Railway Commissioners decided to increase freight rates.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If I understand rightly the Government policy would be to raise rates only to a certain extent but not to the extent sufficient to meet the deficit. Is that it?


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say that. 1 said that an increase, if any, would be entirely in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Government have not the authority to increase freight rates, and to what extent they should be increased rests entirely with the decision of the Board.


Jean-Joseph Denis: But this may become, and it is in effect, a policy otf the Government, because the Government, I understand, has to face a deficit of $47,000,000. Now, who is going to pay for it? Is it the people at large, or those who are making use of the railway? To me it is a question of policy under which the Government will have to decide. It may toe that actually the Board of Railway Commissioners are the only authority to raise the rates, but the Government can give them direction either i directly or indirectly. Does my hon. friend pretend, for example, that the Government can pass a law to raise these rates, or declare that the rates will have to be sufficient to meet the expenses, or anything of that kind? That would have to be a question of policy.


John Dowsley Reid: The law as it stands at present is this: The Board of Railway Commissioners, and they alone, have the right to say wljat the rates shall be on any railway; and if they should fix the rates so that there will be a loss on the operation of the Government railways, then I have to come to Parliament and ask for a vote to cover that deficit. If they fix the rates so that the Canadian Pacific, or other railways that I might mention in the province of Ontario, met with a loss, the railway companies must pay that deficit themselves. The Government are exactly in the same position. In the case of a private company the shareholders would pay any deficit which takes place. Where there is a deficit on a railway owned by the Government the shareholders, or in other words the people, must pay that deficit and the Minister of Railways must come to Parliament and ask for a vote to enable that to be done.


Michael Clark: Surely the distinction made by my hon. friend (Mr. Denis) between the whole people who own the railway and those who use the railway is a very fanciful distinction. Will it not be true that in the case of a national railway with the ramifications of the great system which we have now decided, for better or worse, to handle on behalf of the Canadian nation, that railway will be used practically by the whole of the people. Then in the case of those who do not travel upon the system, large numbers of them will have freight carried on it. I therefore think that my hon. friend's distinction is a very fanciful one. Of course there will be people who do not live near the National system and use the Canadian Pacific rail-
92)
way, but I should say it is perfectly obvious that it is a matter of comparative indifference whether any deficiency is met by those who actually use the road, or by Parliament acting for the whole of the people who own the road.
The minister has told us that there has been considerable loss on this system. Well that was inevitable under the circumstances. I am not so much concerned about that loss for the moment,'but with an unbounded belief in Canada and in its prosperity I am concerned about the loss to this extent-that as one of the citizens of this country, having the honour of a seat in this House and representing a Canadian constituency, I am anxious to change that loss into a gain, and I am sure the minister would regard me as a public benefactor if I were to point out the truth. I do not quite concur in the statement made just now that this liability is likely to be there for a great many years. I am somewhat of an optimist-


John Dowsley Reid: When I made that statement I was speaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental only. I did not mean that that loss would continue for any length of time after we acquire the Grand Trunk railway and couple it with the Canadian National railways.


Michael Clark: I admit my hon. friend has pointed out the bad end of the stick. There is no doubt about it, whoever was responsible, that is so. He may be right in a measure, but it need not be. With the boundless possibilities of this country it need not toe; and I daresay discerning gentlemen in this House already see that I have taken one of the many roads to Rome. Now it is a very elementary principle, so elementary that hon. gentlemen will agree with me, that the only way to make a railroad pay is to make it do business. That is so with any industry. We must so conduct the affairs of this country that our railroads do business. Business is trade, and to trade fully we must trade freely. Now my recipe for making these roads pay is to try a large experiment in the way of taking the tariff off British goods. Is it not perfectly obvious that the only way to make railroads pay is to make work?-do business? My hon. friend on this side, and the minister also said calmly that, after fifty years of a policy which, according to the ex-Minister of Finance, (Sir Thomas White) made this country one


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: I have listened to what the hon. member from the West (Mr. M. Clark) has said about the question of trade, but really the question before the House at the present time is a Teform in our railway administration. We have had experience of railroad management, such as it was, extending over a good many years, and it has ended in absolute failure in regard to two transcontinental lines, and it also ended in failure of the Grand Trunk in connection with the administration of its lines here in the East, the Orand Trunk Railway Company having practically gone into a state of insolvency.
We have too many transcontinental Toads undeT different managements, too much competition, too much duplication of lines, too many officials, too many canvassers for business, too many ticket offices; and the real question before Canada to-day is one of economy-how to stop the absurd wastage that has been taking place. This measure is an effort to put an end to the system we have had in the past, and particularly to put an end to the administration from London of Canadian railroads. What 'brought the Grand Trunk to grief was largely its being managed from London; what largely contributed to the success of the Canadian Pacific was its administration being centred in this country.


Michael Clark: I want to put a question to my hon. friend, who is a very fair controversialist. The Canadian Pacific was a success because we gave its promoters the earth to build in, was that not so?


William Findlay Maclean: Partially so; but we also gave the Grand Trunk Pacific a lot of our money and credit. What did we get for it? A $500,000,000 loss. The Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific were more or less engineered in the,old country. Now we are putting an end to that administration of Canadian railroads in London, and that is one of the advantages and one of the economies that I think will result from this Bill.
But we are also doing something else. As I pointed out before, I have always believed that the only way to get an economic administration of our railways is by consolidation, by making a monopoly of them rather than by having a number of competing lines as they have had in the United States. We have been told that the United States Government made a failure of their administration of the railroads they took over during war-time. But that is not the fact; the fact is that when the railroads were taken over it was found that they had been so badly managed under private ownership that millions of dollars had to be expended to put them into proper shape.
Now then, if there has been mismanagement in the States-and that is now admitted-there has also been mismanagement in this country. Our only resource now is to make more or less of a monopoly of railway transportation, to cut out all competition, to cut out all duplication of lines, to cut out all unnecessary officials, and to consolidate the business-that is what we want to see done. Those of us who believe in public ownership of'railways are waiting to see the new system given a trial. We have asked for it for years,, we have supported it in this House, and What we have been contending for so long is now nearly at the point of consummation.
I wish to speak for the people of Ontario. They believe great benefits will come from the Government taking over the Grand Trunk and consolidating the national system of railways. We in Ontario have been waiting to see the inauguration of that consolidation, and also, as a corollary, the consolidation of the express business of the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk, together with a consolidation of the telegraph systems in connec-

tion with these three roads. Once these consolidations are worked out, I believe they will lead to economies, and I think the people will then be prepared to deal with the other question of how the deficit is to he made good-if there is a deficit. I have no doubt there will be a deficit, and it will have to be met. The question has been raised here to-night whether that deficit ought to be met by an increase in freight rates, or by a vote in the Estimates. Probably it will have to be met in both ways, and while the minister has said -that the jurisdiction for the moment is in the Board of Railway Commissioners, I have no doubt that Parliament, sooner or later, will have to pass a resolution that will be, in substance, an intimation to the Board of Railway Commissioners to increase rates. That, however, will be a matter for a discussion later on. What we want to see now is the consolidation take place at once, so that an end may be put to the great waste that is going on. I see this waste all over the country. I see unnecessary mile after mile of railway that has been put down and is not needed now. The rails should be lifted and placed in new country to open it up. I know places where unnecessary trains could be cut out. I know places where unnecessary stations and unnecessary officials could be cut out, and a whole lot of economies of that kind effected. The effect of consolidation will be to reduce the cost of running the roads, thus making a saving to the people and to the nation.
But first of all we want to see this consolidation take place. We have been promised it for years, and it has been coming about gradually. Nearly every time that we have taken over another road it has been a lame duck, but I will say this for the old Grand Trunk: It- is one of the best railway assets in this country. I am not prejudicing the nation's case before the Board of Arbitration-because anything we say in this House will not be considered by that Board 

when I say that the old Grand Trunk is a splendid asset. I know city after city where the real estate owned by the Grand Trunk is most valuable. In Montreal, for instance, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, and other cities and towns of Canada and along the Niagara and Detroit rivers where the Grand Trunk runs its real estate is a splendid asset. None of us has admitted yet what a valuable asset we get in the Grand Trunk. We get a lame duck for the time being in the Grand Trunk Pacific, but we already had that on our hands. The old Grand Trunk, however, is a first-class asset, and it will pay when it 
is co-ordinated with the National system. It will have more freight to handle by reason of being connected with the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial, and the Transcontinental railways in the West, and the outlook is good for business. I admit that wages have gone up and may go higher, but the country is not to blame for that. We have to face the situation just as everybody in business has to face it, but the savings, once this consolidation takes place, will in my opinion more or less justify the consolidation. I believe that after the consolidation has taken place and the unnecessary waste has been cut out and economies have been effected we shall make such a success of the administration of the National lines that the Canadian Pacific will come forward sooner or later perhaps with a pooling arrangement between the National roads and itself. That is only a suggestion of mine, but I believe that making a national monopoly of the transportation systems of the country is the best way to get economy and efficiency. We are after economy and after efficiency to-day. We are after service, and I believe that all services should be made national monopolies and consolidated with a view to securing better and more economical service. Later on, we may have to pass on the question of increased freight rates and on the question of making some kind of pooling arangement with the Canadian Pacific, but the first thing for us to do is to get rid of these mistakes that we have been making for fifty years and the way to do that is to consolidate these systems. Take politics out of the proposition and have faith that the nation can get first-class railway men to administer these roads and run them in the interests of the country, giving us an efficient service and effecting economies.
There is one thing I would like to point out to the minister in connection with the experience of Toronto, and that is for some time now we have had the best station, we think, there is in Canada.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Except Montreal.


William Findlay Maclean: The most up-to-date station in Canada is certainly the new Union Station in Toronto. But for some reason the use of it has been delayed. This consolidation I think will bring about the use of it. We have in Toronto also the finest post office in America to-day.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Everything is the best in Toronto.	-


William Findlay Maclean: Toronto's is the best. We have got a new station there now,

and we want to see it in use. The consolidation of the systems will improve the express service, the postal service, the passenger service and the freight service in Toronto, and in a great many other cities. Stations can be eliminated by consolidation, and unnecessary tracks and sidings eliminated, and the result will be greater efficiency and a saving to the people. The people have voted time after time in favour of the nationalization of the railways, and now want to see it put into effect. Once it is put into effect, and trade increases as I hope it will, then we can deal with the question whether the deficit shall be made up by increased freight rates or by a vote in the Estimates. But what we want to see now is this consolidation, and the mistakes of the past put an end to. There never was such a continuous series of mistakes as has occurred in connection with railroad administration in this country in the past. I hope that will be changed. I hope this Bill will go through, and that the Government will appoint this joint committee right away, and that the co-ordination of the lines will at once go into effect, so that economies may be effected. The real transcontinental road in this country is not going to be over simply one line, but over the Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern, the Transcontinental, and then over the Canadian Northern again. We will have to cut out all the unnecessary train services on these lines, and if we do that we shall be able to show, not at the end of one year, but perhaps at the end of two, a much better service and very considerable savings. And then we. shall be able to discuss the question of rates.
I have listened with interest to what my hon. friend (Mr. Vien) has said with respect to the situation, but is there any other way out of it? We simply have to take these roads over; there is no other way out of it. We are in the mess. Somebody put us in the mess.


Mr. LALOR:: Who?


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps it was Parliament, perhaps the promoters of the roads, perhaps the railway magnates. But we are in the mess and we have to get out of it the best way we can; and there is no way out of it except by nationalization.


Mr. DEVLIN:: That is the way to get in deeper.


William Findlay Maclean: We have been getting in deeper every year and my hon. friend voted to put us in deeper. We are in the mire up to the neck, and it is time to get out.	1 : '	..


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend point to an instance when in past years before the railroads were nationalized there was a deficit as 'large as the one brought down a few weeks ago by the Minister of Railways?


William Findlay Maclean: But the minister said that this was an unusual year.


Mr. PARENT:: This is an unusual Government.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not going to defend the (Government; I am discussing the facts. We had deficits before; they were covered up in various ways; but they were there, and national reasons were given for them. But we are in the mire; the people of this country, and particularly of the West, want us to get out.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Who got us into the mire?


William Findlay Maclean: I am not going to discuss that. The people will contend that this House got the country into the mire, and the people expect us to get them out. They are going to discuss, not so much who produced the situation, as the duty of their members in this House to rectify the mistakes of the past.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The hon. member speaks about "getting out of the mire" by consolidation of railways and by pooling arrangements with the Canadian Pacific. Will he explain what he means by "pooling"?


William Findlay Maclean: I will not go into that just now; I am discussing how to get out of the mire. But if we lay down what is underlying all this legislation that has taken place lately in the House, it is this, that public service such as transportation ought to be a monopoly and can be most economically and efficiently managed if it is a monopoly. I want to try another method of administration of the railways of this country. Canada has found all the money for "them; the railways have made a failure of their business, and the people, in order to keep the railways from asking for money session after session say: Now we have put a stop to that and we intend to run the railways. The people hope that the railways will be run efficiently by trained railway men, the railways being taken absolutely out of politics, and in that way they hope that an end will be put to the railway control over politics that we have had in the past. I think I have some idea what the people in my province want. They want to put an end to this administra-

tion of railroads that we have had in the past.


An hon. MEMBER:: It began in the present ^Government.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not care
where it began. It began in the previous Government and. before that, yes, for fifty years. The first railway established in this country, the old Grand Trunk, was administered from the Old Country, a bad form of administration. It is the best road the Government has taken over yet; it is the one good asset, and the greatest opposition to taking over the Grand Trunk comes from those who are afraid of a trial of public ownership and from other interests that are against the nationalization of the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk serves that section of the country from Quebec to the Detroit river that produces the most freight, either going or cotaiing, a country that is full of business; and if the Grand Trunk is well handled and consolidated with the Canadian Northern and the Transcontinental railways in the West and the Intercolonial, it will produce a great deal of business and give good service, and later on we shall get rid of the deficits we now have.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The hon. member (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has travelled far afield fin railroad matters, and has utterly failed to confine himself to the question at issue. He made a very interesting speech to prove to the House that it was a good thing to buy the Grand Trunk. That is a question of principle which was settled last year on the second reading of the Bill for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk, and if this question of principle should be opened up again in committee, there would be no end to the discussion. Consequently 9 p.m. I will not attempt to answer my hon. friend on the merits of the question, but I will confine imy remarks to the point which was under discussion when the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) answered me. The question which I asked the minister was this: Who is going to make good the deficit-the people of the country or the users of the road? The question had not been decided when the hon. member (Mr. CM. Clark) said that he was strongly opposed to the users of the road making good the deficit, and that he held that the deficit should be paid by the people. But he said also that he did not see the difference between the people at large and those who are making use of the railways. There is a very substantial difference; but for the sake of argument, if 
there be no difference between the people at large and the users of the railway* certainly my hon. friend (Mr, M. Clark) should have no objection to have the people make good the deficit, because according to his statement the people are none other than the users of the railway, and consequently it is not wrong to say that the people should make good the deficit. But such is not the case; there is a vast difference between the people >at large and the users of the railway, and I quite understand that my hon. friend, who, I believe, is representing his party tonight, should place himself on record as being against the users of the railways being the people to make good the deficit. My hon. friend has a policy of his own, according to which he contends that all we have to do is to increase the traffic in order to get the necessary revenue from these railways. Certainly this is elementary; anybody understands that if we could increase the traffic, we would not have to increase the rates. But the traffic cannot toe increased between now and next year nor between now and the next two or three years; it will take years and years before the traffic is sufficiently increased to meet the deficit, and in the meantime iwho is going to make good the deficit? We are now confronted with a situation which calls for an expenditure of $47,000,000 this year and will call for an expenditure of possibly $00,000,000 or $70,000,000 next year. Therefore, the question is direct-who is going to make good the deficit? My understanding on this subject is that each public utility in this country should be self-supporting.


William Findlay Maclean: I say that too.


Jean-Joseph Denis: And if some one should
take objection to a declaration as wide as this, speaking of all public utilities generally-there might be exceptions-I might say that amongst public utilities, certainly the railroads should be self-supporting, because if the railroads are not self-supporting, if the postal department is not self-supporting-and I am informed it has a deficit also-and if every other public utility in this country has each year to come to the treasury for funds to support it, our budget will be increased to such proportions that it will be absolutely impossible to meet it. The only possible way in which we can meet the expenses of this country is to make every public utility pay its own expenses, and this is only right and just.
Speaking of railways, I expect some hon. member wall say that the Intercolonial did not meet its expenses and it should have

been called upon to meet them, and that, according to my statement, that is equivalent to saying that the rates on the Intercolonial should be increased immediately in order that it may meet its expenses. I am making an exception of the Intercolonial because it was built for a particular purpose. The statement has been made, a hundred times and it is almost unnecessary that I should repeat it, for it is a matter of common knowledge, that Confederation was possible, so far as the Maritime Provinces were concerned, only on the understanding that steps wopld 'be taken to link up those provinces by means of a railway with Quebec and Ontario. The railway was not built as a paying proposition. It was purely a part of the Confederation agreement, and it was well understood at the time of Confederation that the deficits on the Intercolonial would be borne by the people at large. For that reason I make an exception of the Intercolonial.


Michael Clark: Was the Grand Trunk Pacific not a political road? Was not a general election fought over it?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am making an exception of the Intercolonial, but I contend that all other mads should pay their own expenses.


Mr. MORPHY:: Does the hon. gentleman argue that the Intercolonial was never intended to pay?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I certainly contend that it was never built as a financial proposition.


Ernest Lapointe: That is perfectly true. It was a part of the Confederation scheme.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It is an historical fact that the Intercolonial was built purely and simply in order to carry out an arrangement entered into at the time of Confederation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I was informed by a man living down there that in one division, while the preceding Government was in power, 400 free passes were given on the Intercolonial on one day.


William Stevens Fielding: That must have been at the time of an election.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No; it was an ordinary, everyday occurrence.


Ernest Lapointe: And still you are in favour of public ownership.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does my hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Denis) approve of that way of running the Intercolonial?


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not get off the subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would not approve of any policy that would make the Intercolonial a vehicle for the free conveyance of everybody. But the hon. gentleman's statement is by no means a fact, I do not accept his mere statement as proof that the Intercolonial did give the number of free passes which he was told it gave. If it did, I undoubtedly would disapprove of such management. But the point at issue is that when Confederation was contemplated it was agreed, as part of the bargain, that the Eastern Provinces would be linked up with Quebec and Ontario by means of a railway, and, more than that, the railway would pass through certain localities in order to afford every possible facility to the east in the shipment of goods. But it was understood beyond any possibility of question that the Intercolonial would never pay because it was not a financial enterprise. Every one knew that it would have a yearly deficit, and it was agreed that that deficit should be shouldered by the country at large; otherwise, Confederation would have been an impossibility. It would have been an easy matter during the last fifty years to wipe out the deficit on the Intercolonial, for all the Government had to do was to raise freight rates generally. By raising the rates the deficit would have disappeared, but the whole charge of the Intercolonial would thereby have been shifted to the shoulders of the people of the Eastern Provinces which would have been a piece of injustice from my point of view, and would have been a breach of the Confederation agreement. That is why I make an exception of the Intercolonial railway. But, I repeat, all other railways should pay their expenses, and for that reason I asked the Minister of Railways the other day whether there would be separate bookkeeping in connection with each line so that we might be in a position to know whether each was paying its expenses.


Mr. TURGEON:: classes of people who use the railway, passengers and shippers. Passengers use the railway for exclusively private purposes, * and possibly it might be wise at times to increase passenger rates. But freight rates are ultimately a charge on the consumer, because the farmer who lives far away in the back settlements has to pay an added cost on the goods sold by the merchant when freight rates are increased. If we desire to encourage exports and imports we must make the rates as low as possible in order that our producers may be able to compete in foreign markets. I agree with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), whose views I am generally able to accept, that we must provide for goods coming in the lowest transport rates possible when they reach Halifax, St. John or Quebec. Four-fifths of these goods have to be transported again to people in the West two or three thousand miles away, and the higher the freight rates the more the consumer in the West will have to pay. This deficit of $47,000,000 is the largest that has ever been incurred, and it constitutes a serious burden on the people.
Let us compare the deficit that has been produced by this board of management with the deficit upon the Intercolonial railway of which a great deal has been said by my hon. friend who has spoken before me. As an old advocate of the Intercolonial railway and an optimist as to the future prosperity of Canada, I have always had faith in the Intercolonial railway although I must say that the prosperity of the country was interrupted by the arrival in power of a Conservative Government in 1911, so much so indeed that three years of their administration resulted in bringing a condition of paralysis to our railways from a want of freight and passenger traffic in the East as well as the West. It was my lot to visit the West in June, July and August, 1914. I was in [DOT] the West when war was declared. On every division upon the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern I found that local trains had been cancelled and that the people were waiting to see what the future would bring. The war was declared, and it has been won; and material prosperity has come with the war and we have had an abundance of freight in every direction.
Meanwhile I am opposed to an increase in freight Tates more particularly because it is in the interest of the country that this board of management, which has brought about this immense deficit, should be taught a lesson and we must put it in a position that it will exert its best ability dur-

ing the present year to reduce the operating" deficit. Of the total deficit of $47,000,000 on the operation of the Canadian National railways, $4,465,000 or thereabouts, is attributable to the Intercolonial railway of which we have heard so much, a deficit such as the Intercolonial railway had never before produced from the first year of its operation. When the business of the country was not 25 per cent of what it is today, when the population was only half of what it is to-day, when the traffic was not half of what it is to-day, we had a deficit under government operation, of a million to a million and a half, and sometimes a surplus. Still some people thought the Intercolonial was the cause of all the railway Doubles in Canada. Hon. gentlemen t speaking on this question last year stated that the sum total of the deficits on the Intercolonial up-to-date, and extending over a period of fifty years, was about $9,000,000. It took fifty years to produce that deficit, while this board of administration produces a deficit of half that amount, or $4,465,000, in one year. This board, composed of officials of the Canadian Northern railway of whom so much has been said, brings about a deficit of $4,465,000 in the first year of its administration.
If from the opening of the Intercolonial shortly after Confederation and down to 1911 the rates, generally speaking had been equal to those received by the company roads, whether the Canadian Pacific or the Grand Trunk, there would have been no deficit at all on the government road. Before the Hon. Andrew G. Blair became Minister of Railways in 1896 that railway had been abandoned by the members of the Conservative party, more particularly in the province of Ontario, who declaimed against government operation. As a result we on this side of the House had to educate'the people of Canada to believe in the government administration of this railway in the interests' of the country. Mr. Blair put the road on a sound operating basis. He extended it from Levis to Montreal, he gave it commercial value and importance, he gave it a good road-bed, he gave it as good an equipment as that of any other road; with the result that he came to Parliament with a deficit of only $1,000,000 or $1,500,000, and some years with a surplus.
It was affirmed by the last Minister of Railways and Canals of the Liberal party, Hon. George P. Graham, that if during the ten years preceding this administration the Intercolonial railway had had the same rates as the Canadian Pacific from Montreal to Halifax it would have been able to show

a surplus every year. That is well established. But now this administration, with excess traffic earnings of $12,000,000 during the year, brings in a deficit of $4,500,000 on the Intercolonial and a total deficit of $47,000,000 on the Canadian National railways. These hon. gentlemen say to the commission:	" Go on; never mind the deficit;
carry on, carry on." We have to tell the commission that such an administration is not to be compared with the present administration of any other railway in this country. Last year, while the administration of the Canadian National railways has brought about a deficit of $47,000,000, and while the Government and corporation railways were enjoying the same rates as the Canadian Pacific, that railway, after paying all its fixed charges winds up with a surplus of $22,000,000 to lbe put into the pockets of its shareholders. Twenty-two millions of profit after paying all fixed charges as against a deficit of $47,000,000 under government commission and no fixed charges paid! It is the duty of this Parliament to see that the board of management at the end of the present year shall be able to bring in a better report than they have given to the country for the last three or four months during which they have administered the railways.
The expectation of the Fathers of Confederation was that a small amount of traffic on the Intercolonial railway would naturally give a deficit but that with an increase of . business a greater margin of profit might be expected. It is by increasing production and business, as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said, that we can expect railways to prosper but it would appear that under this administration the more business we give the railways the greater the deficit. The very same remark was made to me a little more than a year ago by the ex-Minister of Public Works, Mr. Carvell. I was telling him that if he would only take over a railway in my county called the Caraquet and North Shore we would be able to give the Intercolonial more traffic and he replied:	" My friend, do
not give them any more traffic because the more traffic you give them the greater is the deficit they get." So, Mr. Chairman, I wish to notify the Minister of Railways that when I am blaming the administration of this railway I must say that during the period of the minister's own personal administration- during part of which time he acted for the late lamented Mr. Cochrane-he achieved better results than did the commission. For that I give him credit. The deficit on
the Intercolonial under his administration was only a million dollars, or thereabouts, while the commission's management has been attended by a deficit of four and a half millions or over. Therefore I wish to register my protest against any increase of rates at the present time. Later on if the commission comes with the same deficit, or any proportionate amount, it will be time for the Government either to demobilize themselves or demobilize the commission and appoint other gentlemen who will better safeguard the interests of the country.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I had thought, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) had explained the situation so concisely and clearly and had prescribed such a commonsense remedy that further discussion was unnecessary. But that appears not to be the case, and so .1 would like for a moment or two to consider some of the remarks made by those hon. gentlemen who have spoken since my hon. friend from Red Deer took his seat. In the first place I would like to ask the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) what he meant when he asked the question: Should the users of the Canadian Government railways or the people of Canada pay the deficit on operations? I imagine that he meant by the "users" of the Canadian railways the people who ship freight over the lines and who travel over them and pay their fares. If he meant that the users of the road should pay the deficit-that is that the passenger and freight rates should be increased so that the traffic over the road would pay the deficit-I think he did not take cognizance of the fact that if that was done the freight rates would have to be increased in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway and the other private-owned railways. In that way the people of Canada would pay the deficit. They would not only pay the deficit on the Government roads but they would put into the coffers of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other similar roads, millions of dollars that would otherwise not be paid. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman this question: If the Canadian Government railways were ever brought to the stage that the Minister of Railways told us the other day he hoped to see them reach-and I hope the minister is a prophet and that he will be able to bring the roads to such a successful point at no distant date-if such should happen to be the case, and the Canadian Government railways should earn a surplus, what would the hon. member for Joliette

propose to do with that surplus? Would he give it back to the users of the road, or would it accrue to the benefit of the people of Oanada? Therefore I hold that his argument, viewing it in both respects would not hold good.
I would also like to refer briefly to the statement made by the member for South York (Mr. Maclean). He said that the management-perhaps I should not say mismanagement, I do not know that he actually used that term-the management of the Grand Trunk Pacific from England, was the cause of the deficit. I would ask my hon. friend what was the cause of the deficits on the Canadian Northern and on the Intercolonial? I do not think he can claim that these two roads were managed from England, or from London, in any way. Therefore I do not think that his argument in that respect holds good. I will admit, however, that perhaps the fact that the directors of the Transcontinental reside in England had something to do with the mismanagement of the road. However, if that was the cause of the deficit on that particular line it would not be applicable in respect of the other Canadian Government railways.
I understood the hon. member for Joliette to make the statement that the deficit on the Intercolonial was due to the fact that it was a political railway, but I think he demurred to the idea that the Transcontinental was also a political railway, although the point was well made, because as was said, two elections were run with that railway as an issue. Now, speaking upon the subject of the Transcontinental the other day I said I thought it was up to some members of the old Liberal party to tell us where the $98,000,000 of expenditure over and above the estimated cost of the building of that road, went to.
I did not mean to imply on the occasion of my former remarks that either Liberal party, or the old Liberal Government, had stolen that money. It was due to the extravagance in the building of that road right through a portion of New Brunswick where it never, should have gone. I believe the money was actually expended: it went into the construction of the road or into contracts that were made for construction.
There is another feature of the question in connection -with that railway. I believe that the building of that road through a territory where it never should have been built was purely political. I believe that at that time every member from jNova Scotia-unfortunately for the Government

of the day and for the country-was a supporter of the administration, and as you probably know there has always been competition between the ports of Halifax and St. John for traffic. The members from Nova Scotia at that time were so shortsighted that in order to gain a little advantage for the Nova Scotia port they insisted that the road must be built through the centre of New Brunswick, across the watersheds of the Salmon river, the To-bique river and the Miraimichi river, necessitating the construction of costly bridges. One bridge which was built across the Salmon river cost nearly half as much as it would have cost to build the railway down the St. John Biver valley to the port of St. John, or approaching that. In addition, the route followed necessitated the tunnelling of one mountain, the making of various cuts and fills, and the construction of expensive bridges. That was done, as I say, in order to build the road ^o as to suit the Nova iScotia supporters of the Government of that time and to draw traffic to Halifax from a section of country that will never be developed in any way because it is a spruce wilderness. When I say that I do not mean to say anything detrimental to New Brunswick. That spruce -wilderness is probably the greatest asset that New Brunswick owns. If fires are kept out that spruce forest will be a practically inexhaustible source of wealth to the province. But the products of that forest will never be shipped out by railway, because the logs can be floated down the rivers, which abound in that country, at a very much cheaper rate than they can be shipped by rail. At the same time the country down the St. John Biver valley was greatly in need of a railroad such as the Transcontinental would have been. It would also have been a shorter route to the seaboard than would the route via Halifax. To prove how that country needed a railroad, our province, since that time, has commenced the building of the St. John and Quebec railroad through the territory where the Transcontinental should have gone. So when he talks of political railroads I think my hon. friend from Joliette will have to add the Transcontinental to the category. I am also afraid he will have to add to the list a few more of these Government railroads as well.
With regard to the deficit on the Canadian Government railways, I would like to know why it is that under the very same conditions that have resulted in that deficit, the 'Canadian Pacific .Bailway has been able to pay its usual ten per cent dividend,

and put more money into the betterment and the upkeep of its rolling stock than it ever has done in previous years. I think I could point out some reasons why that is the case. In the first place something like $400,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada were put into that railway and were practically given to the Company. 1 imagine the return for it was the excellent service which that railway affords us. The country, however, has never got any return in dividends, in fact we have never asked for it. At that time it was necessary to build the Canadian Pacific railway in order that the country might be developed. Perhaps some of the roads which were acquired by the Government at a later date were built for political purposes rather than for the benefit of the country, especially where they were duplicated and where the lines paralleled each other. I think, perhaps, the minister may be able to effect a saving by cutting out some of that duplication, and lessening the duplication of terminals and of managements with respect to these roads,, I sincerely hope he will.	*	,
However, when the system of rounding that corner is applied, in view of the deficit being so much greater in 1919 than in 1918,
I am reminded of the story of the li'title boy who was late for school one morning. He explained the reason for his being so late was that the road was -so slippery that every step he took .ahead he slipped back two. The teacher replied: "Well, Johnnie, how did you -get here at -all?" He answered: "I never would have got here, teacher, had I not turned round and tried to get home again." So I would like to see the Minister of Railways turn round and try to get home-again, for if he tried to go the other way he might reach the goal he is aiming -at. I sincerely hope he will be successful, and I am .sure we of this independent patty will give him all the assistance we possibly can to attain that end.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: One or two points have been brought out in this debate to which I would direct some further attention, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Denis), made an exception of the Intercolonial Railway, pointing out that it was a political road, having 'been built as a condition of Confederation. The hon. gentleman is quite accurate in that statement. Rut I would like to point ouit that the Ihtercolonial railway for most of the years of its -existence carried freight for the people of -the Maritime Provinces at about one-third of the rates charged on the privately-owned railways. It seems to me, however, that the time has come when the Intercolonial might reasonably he expected to pay its way. No charge has ever been made to meet the interest on the capital cost of that railway; the deficits have occurred -because the revenues have not been sufficient even to pay the upkeep and operating expenses. The hon. gentleman went on to say that all other railroads ought to be made to pay; that is, I take it, that their freight rates -should be sufficient to .meet Itheir operating expenses, maintenance, and interest on -capitalization; and he took the position that the Government, having taken over these railroads, must fix rates sufficient to make them pay.	_
Now, o-ne reason why I interpose in this debate is because I feel the public need to have the railway situation pounded into them. Hon. gentlemen surveying -a deficit of $47,000,000, hold up their hands in holy horror, and talk in a manner to scare all our people into the idea that public ownership is a colossal failure. Let us clearly understand the situation. If the people of Canada had voluntarily embarked upon the policy of public ownership, and had built -this -great system of railroads on an economic basis, -the argument of my hon. friend would be right. But it must be clearly understood that for years and years the public treasury has been tapped annually for the purpose of keeping up these lame-duck railroads; -and if there is a deficit -at the present time of $47,000,000, it -must he as clear as noonday that even weTe those railroads not in our hands, we would have to pay the deficit annually by way of subsidies to those lame-duck roads. Take the Grand Trunk Pacific -alone. We know how that gTeat system was forced upon the country. The Grand Trunk Pacific was unable to earn sufficient revenue to keep it going. W-hat did the management do? They simply stopped operation. Thereupon the Government was in duty -bound-forced-to continue operation or we would have had a rebellion in the country served by that railway. Owing to the colossal folly of all parliaments and all governments for the last thirty or forty years, the country has had imposed upon it a system of lame-duck railroads that would swamp the richest country under the sun. And yet hon. gentlemen talk as if we are to make these now nationally-owned railroads pay. Why, of course we cannot make them pay, Mr. Chairman. Take the Transcontinental-and I want to endorse the words of my hon. friend from Red Deer

(Mr. M. Clark) that not only the Intercolonial but the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific also were political railways, and two general elections were fought around them. In regard to the great Transcontinental railway, I travelled over it last Friday and Saturday. It consists of 1,800 miles, and 60 or 70 miles from Winnipeg it plunges into a wilderness of rocks, and that wilderness, except for an occasional intermission, practically continues all the way through. That railway was supposed to cost the country $1.3,000,000; it has cost $250,000,000 as a matter of fact. It will never pay until the crack of doom. It is well we should understand this. The question the public will have to face is whether that railroad should be abandoned.


Michael Clark: May I put a
question to my hon. friend? Should he not modify that statement a little bit about the crack of doom?


Robert Lorne Richardson: No. I do not believe it will ever pay until the crack of doom. For years, I believe, it will not pay even for axle grease. Now, is it fair to expect that railroad to produce a revenue? It was unloaded on the country not through any fault of Parliament. Parliament has had these babies laid on her lap, and if she did not support them there would be serious trouble in the country, because vested interests have been created all along the line of these railroads, settlers have gone in, new towns have sprung up, and the continued operation of these roads is virtually a compact entered into by Par-' liament-a compact which she must respect and carry out.
I had thought of proposing in connection with our nationally^owned system of railroads the establishment of a ward system; that is, that we should take the Intercolonial the Transcontinental, and large portions of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and put them in a national ward system, wiping out all the capital, because I believe, it was not the will of the people that these railroads should be built. If, on the contrary, it was the will of the people that they should be built, then the people are responsible and we should take the economic portions of our nationally-owned system and charge freight rates sufficient to pay operating expenses, upkeep and interest on a fair capitalization.
It is absolutely impossible that this great Canadian-owned system comprising 22,000 miles of railway, can be successfully operated in the public interest if we charge 
freight rates sufficient to meet interest on the capitalization, and therefore it seems to me that the capitalization must be wiped out. We want to get this idea of public ownership clearly into our heads and see where we are at in regard to it. We have embarked on public ownership, and if there is one thing needed in connection with our ownership of the system it is the education of the public as to the facts. I am not here to charge any particular Parliament or party with responsibility for this group of follies. Both parties have been responsible for these follies; the people of Canada through Parliament and successive governments have been on a railroad drunk for forty years. It is just as well, the time having come for sobering up, that we should face the facts frankly, for in no other way can we make a success of our publicly-owned system; we must have a clear understanding of the situation and of the duties pertaining to that situation.
Now, I wish to say a word or two in reference to freight rates. Some hon. gentlemen take the view that tjiose rates should be increased sufficiently to pay operating expenses, upkeep and interest on capital. If we attempt to do that in regard to our nationally-owned system at the present time, we would place an enormous burden on the people. If we increase freight rates on that system, we must increase the freight rates on all railways, and it is calculated that the increase proposed would cost this country $80,000,000 a year, but, of that $80,000,000, $50,000,000 would go into the coffers of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific has been subsidized by the people of Canada to the .extent almost of a billion dollars, when you take into account exemptions from taxation and exemptions in respect to material and other things, which I have no time to go into to-Right; it has had subsidies sufficient to build its entire system, and 'hon. gentlemen should remember that by virtue of these immense subsidies that have been poured into the pockets of the Canadian Pacific in a munificent Oriental fashion, the company has been able to pay 10 per cent, not on the capital it invested, 'but on the capital the people invested in the railway, and it has accumulated and now has in its treasury the sum of $235,000,000. Are you going to impose an additional burden upon the people of Canada in order that the Canadian Pacific, which does not need it, should get $50,000,000 out of the pockets of the

people of this country, -when all we would be getting would be $30,000,000? Is it not far better to face the music and pay this $30,000,000 out of the national treasury to make up the deficit on the nationally-owned system of railways? Infinitely better, because if you impose additional freight rates the people of Canada will have to put up $80,000,000-for it all comes out of the pockets of the people in the long run. The only sane policy for this country to embark upon is to face the facts. Inasmuch as the whole people, not only shippers of freight and users of the road, but all people who supported governments and parliaments in times past, are responsible for the present situation, let them take their medicine and pay out of their pockets in one way or the other this $30,000,000; but do not let us impose a burden of $80,000,000 on the people unnecessarily.
Consider what such a tax would mean in all avenues. It would give the merchant and all sorts of people an opportunity of advancing their prices, and you cannot tell where the end would be In the present stage of the country's history it would seem to me to be absolute folly to add one crace to the burdens which the people are carrying at the present time. Tt is unnecessary for me to talk to this House about the unrest in the country and the danger that threatens the commonwealth. One of these days we will blow up unless we are able to stay the high cost of living. One way to increase the cost of living is to allow an increase in freight rates, and I think members of the Government and of this House should very, very carefully consider this point before they accede to such an increase.


Lucien Cannon: If freight rates are not increased how* will the deficit be met?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Pay it out of the public treasury. Is it not just as easy to pay $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 out of the public treasury as to tap this House annually for a large sum of money to make up the deficit on the roads? Is it not just as well to face the music and pay in this way rather than by increased freight rates?


Lucien Cannon: Where will the treasury find the money?


Mr. CAS  GRAIN@: That is the question.


Robert Lorne Richardson: By imposing taxes of one kind or another. If the hon. gentleman read the Budget which was delivered in the British House of Commons yesterday
he will probably get some pointers how the money could be raised.


Lucien Cannon: The deficit will be met by imposing new taxes, of whatever kind they may be?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Surely. In that way the burden is spread over all the people who are responsible for the folly, whereas if you make up the deficit by increasing the rates, the burden is imposed only upon the small number of people who use the roads. The burden should be spread over all the people in the form of taxation, because all the people are responsible for the folly that has gone on this country for the last thirty or forty years.


Jean-Joseph Denis: So much exception has been taken to and so much criticism has been levelled at the expression "political road" that I want to make clear once for all that by a political road I do not mean a road that was built for the sake of a political party-I do not think it is capable of meaning that-but a road that was built to achieve a political event. Confederation was a political event that would not have been possible but for the building of the Intercolonial. I therefore say that the Intercolonial was a political road, because it was built in order to achieve a political event. That dsitinguishes a political road from one built on an economic basis. A road may be built on an economic basis, it may be built for a political reason, or for a military reason. We have no military roads in Canada, but they had them in Europe before the war. Wte cannot say, simply because two elections were held while the Transcontinental was being built, that that was a political road.
iMy hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) said that if we raised the rates on the National railways we would have to raise the rates all round, and that the Canadian Pacific would get the benefit of the increase, that it would get a certain revenue from the people of this country which it would not get otherwise. That is absolutely true. But I would remind my hon. friend that this eventuality has already been foreseen, and was provided for by the Government when it imposed a surtax of $7,000,000 a year on the Canadian Pacific. Perhaps every hon. member of the House is not conversant with the fact that the Canadian Pacific has been singled out by the Government and is now paying a surtax, over and above the general tax on corporations, of $7,000,000 a year. If that was a right

thing for the Government to do, it will also be right for the Government to say that if by increasing the rates the Canadian Pacific earnings should be $10,000,000 more, the increase shall not serve to enrich the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific but shall be paid back to the treasury of the country in the shape of such a tax as is now imposed on the Canadian Pacific. Consequently, if the Government roads were made to pay their expenses, there would be no deficit to be met from the treasury, and on the other hand we would receive a larger revenue from the surtax imposed on the Canadian Pacific.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My hon. friend (Mr. Denis) and my hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) have given us their definitions of a political road. My hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) called the Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental political roads because two elections were held while they were building. He might just as well call the Canadian Northern, which was subsidized for long years by the Government that immediately preceded the Unioin Government, and which was eventually bought by that same Government, a political road. If the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Intercolonial were political railways, this was a political railway; and the reason this railway was taken over by the Government at the time was that the country was afraid, having lent so much money to the Canadian Northern, that they would not be able to make both ends meet and that finally the big interests at the back of it, Mackenzie and Mann and the Bank of Ctommerce, might be forced to close their doors.
I want to say something in reference to the manner in which the Government always brings before the House gigantic problems like the one before us at present. Last year, when this Bill was before the House, I asked the Minister of Railways for an explanation regarding the position of the Pullman Car Company in relation to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I also asked-and other members on this side did the same for a list of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company,, but we did not get it. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the beginning of this session asked that the agreement that was to be made between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company be produced. We were told that later on it would be brought down. But at the beginning of this session we did not have it. The Government brought it down 
a short time ago when they claimed that they needed to submit it to the House because there was a flaw in the proceedings that were had in England, although previously the Government had led. us to believe that it was not necessary for us to ratify the agreement, nor even to see it. Recently, there were put on the Grder Paper certain questions regarding the assets and the financial position of the railways which are controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway Company and which are to be found in the appendix annexed to the agreement. For instance, on the 29th March last, I put the following question on the Order Paper:
1.	What are the assets and liabilities of the Bay City Terminal Railway Company, one of the companies directly controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada?
2,	What were the costs of operation and maintenance of said railway for the last year?
3'. What is the yearly revenue of said railway?
i. Where is the Bay City Terminal Railway situated?	[DOT]
5. What is the length of this railway?
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) put a question on the Order Paper regarding the Canadian Express Company, another regarding the Terminal Warehouse Registered,, a third regarding the St. Clair Tunnel Company, and a fourth regarding the Portland Elevator Company. The hon. member for iL'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr Seguin) put a question on the Order Paper regarding the Ottawa Terminals Railway Company, another regarding the Ontario Oar Ferry Company, another regarding the Barre 'Granite railway: The hon. member for Westmount-<St. Henri (Mr. Leduc) put a question on the Order Paper regarding the Bethel Granite railway; the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr.( Euler), a question regarding the Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company. Other members put on the Order Paper questions regarding the Pontiac, Oxford and Northern Railroad Company; the Chicago, Kalamazoo and Saginaw railway ; the Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company; and, as a matter of fact, each and every railway .directly controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway Company and in which this company owned from fifty to one hundred per cent of the stock. At that time the Minister of Railways did, not even say: We will give you an order for return and this informatian will be brought down so that you may get a good knowledge of these roads and can discuss them fully; but he said: The information is not available at present; we cannot give you any detailed

information; you can know nothing about the matter, because this is a matter that is to be investigated before the board of arbitrators, and you aTe not going to know anything about it now. This is one thing to which I must object. We are here as representatives of the people of this country; -and when as to-day, when an agreement is submitted that' calls for our ratification, we have surely a right to know exactly what constitutes the assets of certain railways which are controlled by the main railway which we are buying, where they are situated, what their revenues are and what we may expect to obtain when we have on our shoulders this great railway and the subsidiary railways controlled by it. I am afraid that the earnestness of the Government in bringing this measure before Parliament to-day and asking us to ratify it after they told us last year that that was not neces-sary, is for the purpose of having us ratify a bargain which we are making today and which we have -said many a time -and I repeat it again-is a bad bargain. I am told on good authority-I cannot say exactly from what source, because I might be mistaken-that the -Grand Tf-unk Railway Company is at present confronted with a very serious difficulty; that in the very near future they will need a large amount of money, some people say $15,000,000 or $20,000,000, in order to carry on the operations of the road, and that the reason why the Government are bringing this measure before Parliament is so that they can say later on, if this surmise be true; Well, you saw the agreement and Parliament passed upon it.
Last year we objected to discussing the proposition of ibuying this railway without having a thorough investigation made of the same. This was refused, and we shall have to be mighty careful this time as to the way we vote, because some people might say we are inconsistent should we seem to be approving this year a measure which last year by our action we showed that we entirely disapproved. We were told that there was a certain possible error; that same eminent lawyers in England and in this country did not view the matter in the same light. We were told that some people say it might be that the meeting was held in error, while other people say that it might be legal. This Bill is brought down also to correct another little mistake, to include two or three little railways, subsidiaries of the Grand Trunk, that were not included in the first agreement, As has al-93
ready been said by certain mem-
10 p.m. bers on this side, we are willing to correct these little errors in regard to the inclusion of these railways if the errors are only clerical ones and if they do not change the amount of our liabilities; -but we object to confirming and ratifying the old agreement which is submitted to us to-day. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has said; Well, this to correct the errors, and also at the same time we thought it would be a good thing to have the agreement ratified by the House. The people of this country, when they look at this Bill, will look upon it and it will pass in all ages as -being "An Act to confirm the agreement dated 8th day of March, 1920, between -His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the said Grand Trunk Railway Company except the four per cent guaranteed stock." This is exactly what we objected to last year, and in order to be fair and honest with ourselves, the members who voted against it last year should again this year vote against it. Much more so for the reasons that were advanced by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. -Denis) the other day. If the people of this country had known last year, as they -know to-day, that an amount of $47,000,000 of a deficit will be placed as a burden on this country, their representatives surely would not have voted for that proposition, and perhaps a number of hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side would have done then, as they did at the beginning of this session, namely, crossed to the other side and sq,t with us.
The only possible thing that the -Government could do to aid the country in the great financial crisis in -which we are at present would be to set aside the bargain. It is a -bad bargain, as we said last year and also this year; and when we have an opportunity at present, when we see that the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company are absolutely against the proposition, and as it has not been accepted -because the Government is not sure of its standing with the Grand Trunk Company- we should certainly not press the deal any further. We should let things stand as they are, and I do not think that the Government should press the ratification of the agreement at all. I for one intend to vote against it.
Mr. COCKSHUTT; As a matter of policy is up for decision it appears to me that the present is as- good an opportunity as



any to face the situation and see if we can decide what is the (best course to pursue with regard to this big deficit of $47,000,00 on the operation of the railways during the past year. I shall give my opinion as to what action should be taken, and I know that that opinion will not accord with a good many views that have been expressed on the subject, although there are some hon. members who I believe may agree with me. I think that the public railways of Canada should either be reduced in capitalization, as has been suggested by the hon. member for (Springfield (Mr. Richardson), or, if it is thought that they are all good assets, we should seek finally to earn some dividends upon these roads. For myself, I largely agree with the view expressed by the hon. member for Springfield as to the entire misplacement of a large part of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental. That is a pail of spilt milk that cannot be regained, and there is no use in quibbling in this respect. I have always taken this view, having urged it on many a platform on many occasions, that the whole railway was badly conceived, badly placed, and we can never hope to make it up in our time. The Canadian Northern, on the other hand, is for the most part a well placed road, and though it is perhaps not in efficient condition it is, at the price the country paid for it, a fairly good asset which ought to be worth in these times of high prices one hundred cents on the dollar if it is anything like a railway placed in a country that has any hope of success in the way of producing traffic. -
But I find that a good many members of this House are disposed to argue that we should make up this $47,000,000 by making it a charge on the treasury of 'Canada and taking it out of the pockets of the whole of the people, voting sums year by year to keep the roads going. As a business man I cannot endorse that view. My opinion is that we ought to capitalize these roads at a fair price. We shall have perhaps twelve or fifteen hundred million dollars invested in railways publicly owned in Canada. If these railways are worth only fifty cents on the dollar then, if the amount invested is fifteen hundred million dollars, let us make that $750,000,000 by writing off fifty per cent for bad policy, erratic construction and misplacement of roads, duplication of lines, etc., for which we have suffered and for which perhaps both parties are to a certain extent responsible, although I think that my hon. friends oppos-

ite are a good deal more responsible for i that condition of things than we are. I know that the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) does not agree with that statement, but it is the fact. The Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental were known to be political roads when projected, and it was not contemplated that they should pay at the time they were built nor in the near future. My judgment is that they should never have been built at all. The Hudson Bay Railway I put in the same category, although in this view I may not be supported by some of my western friends. But that is another enterprise for which the present Government are more or less responsible. They found it partly built when they came into power, and nearly completed it at a cost of some $30,000,000. I am told by the Minister of Railways that the contract was let by previous government, so that this Government could not be held responsible for that; but $30,000,000 has been put into that undertaking and quite a bit more will be required before it is finished. Now that these moneys have been misspent and we cannot recall them I think that is just as well for us to make the best of what remains. I want to submit that if under existing conditions of labour, fuel, cost of rolling stock and operation generally, we are carrying freight and passenger traffic at less than paying rates we are not doing good business; and to say that you can wipe out any deficit by doubling traffic is only putting yourself further in instead of coming out of your difficulty. The situation is a good deal like the female huckster selling apples at twopence a pound, who, when she was remonstrated with in the matter of price, said to her customer; "I assure you, madam, I am losing a penny a pound on every pound I sell." The purchaser asked her how she could continue to do business on such a basis, and the reply was: "Oh, well, it is the quantity that does it." Now, if we are losing a dollar a ton on every ton of freight we are carrying-and that is about the condition of things-^that is not good business by any means, and it should not be continued another year; and whether it oppresses the people or not, the people who use the railways are the people who should pay whether they are passengers or shippers. I say this, knowing that I myself shall he hit very hard. I shall be hit as hard as most hon. gentlemen and probably harder than a good many, when I advocate that freight rates be put on a paying basis.


Michael Clark: Would it not be true to say that the -whole country benefits in the general increase of the wealth and population to the districts that have been opened up by these new railways? And if the whole country participates in the benefit of 'that general increase of wealth, where would be the fairness of putting the payment of any deficits that might result from the operation of the railways on the very people who are responsible for that increase of wealth.


William Foster Cockshutt: That may commend itself as sound logic to my hon. friend, but I do not want to enter into any controversy on the point. I am only giving my opinion as a business man, and I say that the very least that should be done-and it is absolutely the minimum-is that the operating expenses of these roads should be met by an increased rate. Still, my hon. friend from Red Deer is not satisfied that we should call all that fifteen hundred million dollars as nothing, but says we should continue to lose fifty or seventy-five million dollars a year because certain people wish . their freight to be carried cheaply. That is not business, and it cannot be argued successfully that this property is worth having if it cannot be made to pay operating charges upon the freight and passengers it carries.


Michael Clark: There is a good deal in the contention of my hon. friend that to operate any system, under increased wages and increased cost of fuel, at a loss would be bad business. But my hon. friend has . not answered my question as to the fairness of putting any deficit that there is upon the shoulders of the people who are making the wealth in the new districts in which wealth the whole community participates.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have endeavoured to answer that question from my standpoint, which I am well aware does not commend itself to the hon. member for Red Deer. I admit that the general prosperity of the country must be considered, and I do not complain about the fact that they have carried hay free in the West when cattle were dying, although we never received such concessions in Ontario, or at least in my part of the country. I am not finding any fault with that, and the general good of the public must certainly be considered. But surely, if after having spent fifteen hundred million dollars of capital invested in twenty-two thousand miles of road, we wipe it all out, and still do not
93i
make any income and if we do not pay the operating expenses, there must be something wrong either wdth the management or the quality and carrying capacity of this country.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is very fond of pointing us to the old country and I am going to take him to the old country as an example in railway matters. It is a free trade country and we would presume they manage their railways as well as they do their trade. Sir Henry Acworth says that they are continuing to toy with railway traffic and that they have been doing that for the last fifty oi seventy-five years. " Toy" is the word to use. He says that Britain is continuing to carry her traffic in ten-ton trucks the same as she did when George Stephenson first put his railway engine on the line, and that these are not more than half full, or sometimes not more than a third full. His statement is that if they fully loaded these ten-ton trucks it would give 1,000 tons for a whole train, whereas in Canada and the United States, he says, our cars carry from 40 to 100 tons per car, and that a full train load in Canada and in the United States is 3,000 tons as against 1,000 for Great Britain. Mr. D. B. Hanna has told us that, if we will give him the same rate of freight that they get on the British railways where they have no snow, ice, or other hard conditions such as we have in this country, he will pay off the national debt within a very few years. This is the statement, I believe of Mr. D. B. Hanna. British freight rates are five, six and seven times as much as ours. Our freight rate is three-quarters of a cent per ton per mile against two pence ha'penny for the British lines, and in some cases three, four and five pence per ton per mile from the Midland counties to London. I have freighted traffic from London to Brantford, 3,000 miles-200 miles of rail freight from London to Liverpool, across the Atlantic to Montreal- and the goods laid down in Brantford cheaper than the English railways were charging the Midland farmers for a 200 mile haul to London. That is a statement that can be verified. Canada is giving the people the very cheapest class of railroading that has been given in almost any country in the world. There is no country that equals us unless it be the United States. Some few American roads may equal us but there are very few that equal what is being done by the great Canadian Pacific " railway and what our Canadian National railways are doing to a considerable extent. I therefore say as a business man that it is

our duty to advise the minister in this matter. He asks the advice of'the members of the House and I am going to give him my advice. It is that the rates should be placed at such a point that they will at least pay operating expenses and that it should be done at as early a date as possible. Just as soon as they get these increased" rates in force these railways should be made to pay operating expenses. And surely if the railroads give this service at cost nobody is going to ask anything better than that. With this investment that we have of $1,500,000,000 in publicly owned railways, is it too much to ask that the people of Canada who use the roads shall pay what would be, not a return on the money invested, but simply for the labour, the fuel, the rolling stock, and the wear and tear upon the line to say nothing whatever about a profit.
I think that nothing else can reasonably be expected.
I listened to my hon. friend across the way (Mr. Casgrain) expatiating upon the wastage policy of the Government, and I wondered if he had ever taken any hand in helping to load up the Government in any way, as I understand he comes from a constituency that did have a road that was not at all profitable. I would like to know what attitude he took upon the acquisition ol that road by the Government. The trouble is that a great many gentlemen who get up and' criticise the Government; have on occasion helped to load this Government up with railways that are unprofitable.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If my hon. friend will allow me I will tell him what my position is with regard to that road. That road hac been taken over when I came here as a member of this House, and as a member oi this House representing a constituency thal needs railways, I have to do everything 1 can in the interest of the people whom i represent. My hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Denis) has just spoken of the position in the Maritime Provinces at the time they joined Confederation. They said that they would join the Confederation because they wanted to have a railway. Those people were just as much interested in getting their railway as the people in my constituency were and that was the reason why, whenever I have an opportunity of saying anything in the House in support of the claims of the people of my constituency, I do so.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman
knows the railway I refer to is the Quebec and Saguenay.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is the one.


William Foster Cockshutt: This Quebec and
Saguenay was loaded on the Federal Government. It was known to be an unprofitable road. I understand that my hon. friend was not displeased when the Government took it over.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not a member of this House when the Government bought it.


William Foster Cockshutt: It would not have
been accepted as a gift when the Government bought it. I understand that my hon. friend was not averse to the idea of having the Government loaded up with this class of roads that we have too many of. He gets up and criticizes the Government because they cannot make these roads pay although taking his full share in putting a load on the Government that makes it impossible for these roads to pay.


Francis N. McCrea: Speaking for the Government, as you no doubt are, what excuse have you to offer for the Government having taken over a road of this character that is no good?


William Foster Cockshutt: I suppose that in a moment of tenderness they yielded to the pressure of hon. gentlemen on the other side and took over the road, although that I cannot tell. It is not necessary to enter into any discussion in that respect because the members from Quebec know what took place in regard to the acquisition of that road, and they know that this Government have been unwilling parties to having these roads thrust upon them. But they have been thrust upon them by the exigencies of the situation and you cannot expect that for the present satisfactory returns can be derived from them. What I want to put clearly is that the minister should in so far as he is able assist the management to make these roads self-sustaining so that next year he will not have to come down to the House and ask for $47,000,000 or $50,000,000 to cover the deficit on the operations of the roads. I think that the country will say that while they are willing to accept the loss and while they will wipe out the capital, they certainly could not be expected to continue to operate the railway at a loss in addition to counting the capital as nothing.


Mr. VTEN:: Mr. Chairman, it was my
duty to put myself on record as opposing this measure. Last year when it was presented to the House on its merits I voted against it, and I do not think that I can now vote for the ratification of the agreement which was made under its clauses.

It cannot, by any means, be said that there is complete satisfaction with this measure, or with the .agreement arrived at under it. We on the Opposition side are dissatisfied because we think it is bad business for the country, and that we thereby saddle Canada with a further deficit in respect of railway operations. The Government themselves are dissatisfied with the conditions created; they say we are obliged to choose the least of two evils. Then too, if we can judge by the reports that have been received of the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk we con safely affirm that those shareholders are dissatisfied also. But apparently, while everybody is dissatisfied with the conditions prevailing in respect of our railways in Canada, there are three classes of people who are satisfied with the Bill, and with the agreement. The first class are those shareholders who see their shares enhanced in value by the fact that they are now guaranteed the interest on them and the reimbursement at par of their guaranteed stocks. Then a certain portion of the people of the province o'f Ontario are satisfied with the acquisition of this railway because they are, generally speaking, favourable to public ownership and too easily assume that the operation of a railway and the operation of water-power are similar. There is also that other class of Ontario people who are satisfied with this nationalization of the Grand Trunk system because they think it is a good thing to remove the management of the system from Montreal to Toronto in the interests of the latter city. The third classe of people who are satisfied are the Westerners- the grain growers of the West-who think it is in their local and personal interest that the Government should acquire and nationalize as many railways as possible. They think they can bring influence to bear on the Government so as to compel them to keep the railway rates as low as possible and thus derive a greater benefit on the sale of their wheat; and to-day we had an admission from hon. members from the West that the deficit in the management of our railways should not be cast on the users of the road, but should be borne by the whole country.
Surprise is expressed at the attitude of the people of the province of Quebec who in this instance-just as in other instances, when legislation is being discussed here or public questions are considered in the cohntry-form the soundest element in Canada and regard
matters from the sanest point of view. We contend that public ownership will not be advantageous to this country. We contend that by acquiring the Grand Trunk Railway system and its subsidiary the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Government will be faced with a further deficit, and that in the present condition of our national finances we are not justified in allowing the Government to pursue that course. We think that if we are going to follow a policy of retrenchment-as advocated by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) and if we are to re-establish our finances on a sound basis, it is not a time for us to acquire new railways which will increase the deficit resulting from our administration of railways. Is not that a sound proposition to present to Parliament?
We are answered by the argument that the Government cannot do otherwise than they are doing. We are told that these railways were forced on us, that they are " one of the dirty babies " left on the Government's doorstep, as the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) used to say. I think that is not correct. It is not correct to say that former governments-whether reference be had to the Liberal Administration, or the Government which succeeded them from 1911 to 1917- left any " dirty babies " on the doorstep of the present Government. Very often there has been criticism of railway management in the past. I have heard the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) denounce, three or four times at every session since I have been a member of the House, the " follies," which he claimed had characterized the administration of our railways and our railway policy in past years.
Sir, we absolutely had to * have railways in order to develop Western Canada. It is true that railways were built before the traffic and before the population of the Western Provinces would justify such an extent of railway mileage. But we were in a vicious circle; we could not get the population and we could not develop Western Canada except by building railways. Without population our railways would not pay, and immigrants were pouring into Canada by hundreds of thousands yearly. We had to provide the necessary facilities to give those people access to the Prairie Provinces, and to enable the products of the West to be marketed. Who will say that the enhanced value in the Western Provinces did not cover, and more than cover, the expense that the country in-

eurred. Surely the increased value which accrued to the lands in the West as a result of building railways more than met the expenditure to the country which the providing of such facilities involved.
The Liberal Administration has been criticised as being responsible for the present condition of affairs. This charge against the Liberal Administration is not justified by the facts. What did occur? In 1903 the Liberal Government entered into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Kailway Company by which that company was to build the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, extending from Winnipeg to the coast, whilst the Government was to build the National Transcontinental railway extending from Moncton to Winnipeg, and upon completion of the latter railway the Grand Trunk Company were to operate it under lease for fifty years without any expense to the country. If that agreement, which was ratified by |two subsequent general elections, had been respected, the Grand Trunk Kailway Company would have operated the National Transcontinental railway under lease in conjunction with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway.
^ Why is it that the Grand Trunk Railway Company did not accept the National Transcontinental railway? Because after the elections of 1911 the Conservative Administration changed the grading of the line and the specifications of the terminals without the consent of the Grand Trunk Company, and when in 1914 the Government was ready to hand over the National Transcontinental to the Grand Trunk Company, that company said: We are no longer bound by our agreement, because you have not yourself lived up to its terms. As a result the Government was compelled to yield to the contention of the Grand Trunk Company. In the Drayton-Acworth report it is said:
The Grand Trunk Company have already obtained a tacit release from their contract in reference to the Transcontinental half of the original Grand Trunk Pacific undertaking.
In 1914 therefore the Grand Trunk Railway Company was released from its obligation to lease the National Transcontinental railway. In 1914, 1915 and 1916 the Grand Trunk Railway Company said to the Government: You have deprived us of the connecting link between Sarnia, the western end of our system, and Winnipeg, the eastern end of the Grand Trunk Pacific system, which connecting link was to be the National Transcontinental. We have not been able to take it over on account

of the changes you made in the grading of the railway and in the specifications of the terminals. Therefore, as the Grand Trunk Pacific railway without any connection with the eastern section of our system cannot be a paying proposition, the Government must pay the annual deficit in the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. The result was the Government admitted the contention of the Grand Trunk Company, and in 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917 they obtained a vote from this House to cover that deficit.
Well, Sir, whose fault wras that? From the beginning of the debate on this subject both this session and last session we have been charged with responsibility for the present conditions, which we have been told are the direct result of the folly of our railway policy. To that charge I reply: No, Sir, the railway policy of the Liberal Administration was sound, because the construction of the railways under that policy was necessary for the development of Western Canada. The construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and of the Transcontinental was not to increase the charge against the public treasury, as the Grand Trunk Railway Company was to lease the latter for a term of fifty years and operate it in conjunction with the former. But the default of the Conservative Administration compelled the Government to release the company from the conditions of their agreement. In 1914 the Government was obliged to take over the Transcontinental railway, and in 1918 it was face to face with the alternative of closing up of the Grand Trunk Pacific, or taking it over and merging it with the National Railway system.
As to the policy of nationalizing our railways, it would be useless to try to explain or to argue that it is a sound policy. Everybody admits that railways cannot be managed as efficiently by governments as by private corporations. In every other country the experiment has been made, and never with success. After our experience with the Intercolonial railway, after the experience of the Railway Board of the United States, and after the experience of all the European countries with the exception of Switzerland, how can we contend that no matter what applications there may be of disinterested and broad-minded service, and no matter what freedom there may be from political influence, we will be able to make government ownership of our railways a paying proposition? It would be childish to believe it.

We were told two years ago that the Government in nationalizing our railways intended to have them administered by the best men that could be engaged. What has been the result of that administration? Deficits, yearly increasing. The deficits this year are heavier than they were last year, and they were heavier last year than they were the year before. And it will always be so. The Liberal Administration has been accused of giving four hundred passes on the Intercolonial railway. Can we change human nature, can we prevent political influence from making itself felt in the administration of our National railways? I do not believe so. The experience of the past should /teach us that we will not in the future be any more secure against such influence than we have been heretofore.
I come now to the question of how to deal with these yearly deficits. Two propositions are put forward; one to increase railway rates, the other to charge the deficits as a public expenditure against the consolidated revenue fund. Hon. members from the West, following the policy advocated by tmy hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), are favourable to keeping the rates as they are at present and charging the deficit to the consolidated revenue fund. I believe that this method is unfair, unjust, and unsound. How could we charge against the consolidated revenue of Canada the deficit on the railways which is due to the fact that the rates are so low that it is impossible for the railways to meet even their current expenditure? Who is benefiting by the railways of Canada? Who are the users of the railways of Canada? To a certain extent the older Eastern and Central Provinces, but more particularly, and especially with regard to freight rates, it is the grain growers and the people of the West who are benefiting. I do not find fault with them in defending their own personal interest, but I think in this debate it is our duty to consider only the interest of the public at large. I understand that the wheat production of the West is in the neighbourhood of 200,000,000 bushels annually, and that 70 per cent of this production is hauled over the roads to the eastern ports, where it is loaded into ships and sent to the-great wheat market of the world, Liverpool, and is sold. The people of the We3t and some hon. members who come from the Western -Provinces are now asking this House to sanction the principle that the Eastern Provinces shall pay for the hauling of the
wheat of the western grain growers.


Mr. J. F. REID:: Who has been paying the deficit on the Intercolonial?


Thomas Vien: Most assuredly the greater part, if not almost the whole of the deficits of the Intercolonial were paid by the Eastern and Central Provinces. Twenty years before the opening of the Western Provinces, the Eastern Provinces were paying for the deficits on the Intercolonial and the interest on the construction costs. Even after the construction of the Canadian Pacific, the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific was an accomplished fact, and even to-day, the Eastern and Central Provinces on account of their big valuation are paying much more than their share of the deficits of the railways of Canada. Will my hon. friend (Mr. J. F. Reid) contend that Ontario and Quebec and the Maritime Provinces do not contribute to the public exchequer in a larger measure than the Western Provinces? Will he contend that the Western Provinces are contributing to the public exchequer in larger measure than the Eastern or Central Provinces? If Ontario and Quebec and the Maritime Provinces are paying to the public exchequer a larger share than the Western Provinces, it necessarily follows that their share in the payment of the debts incurred by this country, even for the opening of the Western Provinces, is larger than the share of the Western Provinces.


Oliver Robert Gould: Does my hon. friend contend that the Eastern people pay more per capita than the W-estern people?


Thomas Vien: It is not a question of the
per capita contribution, but of -the bulk contribution to the public exchequer. If your population is scant and scattered over a vast area, it is not the fault of the Eastern Provinces. No one will contend that Ontario and Quebec and the Eastern Provinces are not contributing a larger amount to the public exchequer, not on a per capita basis but as regards the bulk of their contributions, than the Western Provinces. Therefbre, I say that the Eastern Provinces have an interest in this matter, and a very considerable interest. Ontario and Quebec have done a great deal to develop the West. Indirectly they have benefited, for it has been to the benefit of Canada as a whole, -but the greater share of the benefit has been reaped by the westerner, and he is reaping the greater share to-day. It would not be just to ask this country to pay

the annual deficit on the railways simply for the purpose of allowing the grain grower of the West to carry his wheat at a cheaper rate for his own personal advantage and to the detriment of the rest of the community^ Are the manufacturers of the East asking the western grain growers to contribute to the development of their industries except through the tariff, which we ourselves oppose, and on which we want a substantial reduction?


Mr. MAH  AEG@: What is the difference
between contributing directly and indirectly?
, Mr- VIEN:	We are in complete accord
in so far as the reduction of duty on certain manufactured goods is concerned. We contend that the basis of our economic structure is wrong and unfair, and that it should be changed. We are in complete accord in that respect.


Mr. MAHAEG:: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that the most profitable business, in fact, the only profitable business, of the National railways has been the long haul of the western wheat?
. Mr- VIEN: I am aware of one fact, and it is this: that the railways of Canada with the exception of the Canadian Pacific are all faced with deficits, that the rates are not sufficient to pay even operating expenses. Even the Canadian Pacific, notwithstanding their big reserves, now find their net surplus decreasing very rapidly from month to month, and they already contemplate making application to the Board of Eailway Commissioners for an increase in rates to prevent the wiping out of their surplus over operating expenses. It is an absolute fact -that the 'Canadian Pacific finds its surplus melting away on account of the increase in operating expenses.


Mr. KEEFEE:: Does not that explain
any increase in any deficits for the Canadian National Eailways?


Mr VIEN:: I admit that, the low rates are to a large extent responsible for the inability of the Canadian Government Eailways to meet the fixed charges and operating expenses, but so far the Canadian Pacific has been meeting its obligations with the existing rates which prevail for the Canadian Government Eailways as well.
I do not consider it fair reasoning to state in this House, as the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Eichard-son) said to-night, that we could not increase the rates because the Canadian Pacific would benefit thereby. If the Canadian [GVIr. Vien.l
railways, whether nationalized or privately- * owned cannot meet their operating expenses and fixed charges without an increase in the rates, the only sound policy is to increase the rates sufficiently to cover the deficits. This is the reason why the west-ener is particularly favourable to nationalization of railways; as I said before, they want the Government to kpep the rates low, and they think that if the railways are nationalized, through their influences on the Government or through fear that the Government might have of them-that might be putting the matter more clearly-they will keep the rates low, and then these westerners will benefit by those low rates, because of the increased profit on the sale of their wheat.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS:: Is the hon. gentleman aware of the fact that every railway operating in the three Prairie Provinces is on a paying basis at the present time?


Thomas Vien: Apparently not the National railways.


James McCrie Douglas: Yes, the National railways.


John Archibald Maharg: So far as western business is concerned.
Mr- IIEN:	The western business of
the National railways does not consist only in the operation of the various branch lines and feeders that cover the western field; the greatest expense incurred by the National railways is that of hauling the western products to the eastern coast,


Oliver Robert Gould: Through the Eastern Provinces.


Thomas Vien: But not to the benefit of the Eastern Provinces, but to the eastern ports for the benefit of the western exporters.


Mr. DAVIS:: I.s not that business which originates in the West profitable to the East as well as to the West?


Thomas Vien: Undoubtedly, and if that had not been so, the hon. gentleman will credit us with such a degree of intelligence that we would not have built those railways if it had not been for the development of the ^vhole country. If it had been useless for Canada to develop the Western Provinces, those railways would not have been built;
they were bdilt for the development 11 p.m. of the Western Provinces. Those railways have in a very large measure paid the bill; they have given to the Western Provinces a greatly increased value. Who has been bene^ted by the increased

value given to the Western Provinces by the construction of railways, if not first and above all, the westerner himself?


Fred Langdon Davis: And also the East.


Thomas Vien: But first and above all, the westerner himself, not only through the increased value given to his land, but through the greater facility that he has in exporting his grain and-carrying it to its natural market.


John Archibald Maharg: Who were the original westerners?


Thomas Vien: The original westerners were, for a certain proportion of the population, from Ontario and the Eastern Provinces, but the great bulk of the people of the Western Provinces, if I am correct-and I speak subject to correction-c-ame through immigration, and these railways have been for the benefit, not mainly of those who came from the Eastern Provinces, but of the whole population of the West,, that is to say, of the immigration that came and settled in the Western Provinces.


John Flaws Reid: Have the railways not also been of great benefit to manufacturers in Eastern Canada?


Thomas Vien: Undoubtedly, and that is the answer I gave to the hon. gentleman who interrupted me a minute ago. I am not finding fault with the westerner who tries to look after his personal interest; but it is the duty of members of this House to look into this matter, not from the interest of a section of the country, but from a national point of view. Moreover, the westerner, the grain grower and the farmer of the Eastern Provinces should consider their true interest, and if they think of the matter in a sound manner and seriously, they will find that in the long run this policy is going to be detrimental to themselves and more especially to their personal interests.
The country is financially embarrassed at the present. The Minister of Finance will not be able this year to find in the revenue of the country, ordinary or extraordinary, the necessary money to meet the expenditure. We shall have a deficit this year; we shall have a deficit next year; we shall have a deficit for several years to come. Where is the money to come from? Undoubtedly it will have to come through direct taxation. Last year the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) suggested that we should even tax the unimproved value of land, a first taxation on land; which will be followed, if our deficit continues to
increase, by direct taxation on land whether improved in value or unimproved. Who is going to make good the deficit, if not the land owner? Is it then not in the interest of all those who own land to see to it that the affairs of the country are balanced; that the income meets the expenditure, and that we do not create further deficits by the administration of railways through public ownership? Who will pay in the long run? The farmer, the owner of the land is going to pay in the long run all those expenditures with which we saddle the country.


John Archibald Maharg: He has always done so.


Thomas Vien: Trunk Pacific, and the position created by the Government's improvidence is in no way relieved. For these various reasons I think that hon. members, should oppose, as I intend to do, the ratification of this agreement. I intend to oppose this measure as I opposed this legislation last year.


Francis N. McCrea: Mr. Chairman,-


John Dowsley Reid: I was going to suggest that as the hour is late and there is no likelihood of our getting through this evening it might be advisable tor us to rise, unless hon. gentlemen desire to proceed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; let us
adjourn-


John Dowsley Reid: Very well, if there is no possibility of our getting through and there are many memlbers who desire to speak, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to: progress reported.
On motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Wednesday, April 21, 1920.